Jump to content

Talk:Jane Fonda/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Anti-War

Here's my contribution;

Recently, Vietnamese historians have suggested that Fonda's and other activists' anti-war efforts after the Tet Offensive, which devastated the North Vietnamese forces, literally turned the tide against the American invading forces. The North Vietnamese realized that, while they were losing the war on the battlefield, they had the potential to achieve victory in the political arena within the United States itself. Thus, Fonda's trip to Hanoi is seen by many veterans of the Vietnam War as emblematic of the internal defeat experienced by the American pro-war factions. The American casualties during Fonda's activist period exceded 20,000 deaths.

It's appropriate because it's real. I have no doubt it will be deleted soon. If you are concerned about legitimate citations I suggest you go through the article with a fine-tooth comb and discover ALL the undocumentated citatations here and virtually everywhere throughout Wikipedia. Double standards are a wonderful tool of propaganda. I'm just curious, AndreaParton, how it was that within minutes of my contribution to this article you came along to question its veracity. I smell a Wikipedia conspiracy here, though I'm sure you're a very nice person after all. 69.109.124.102 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt that many supporters of the Vietnam War feel this way about Jane Fonda's actions. I just feel like this article already says a lot about the criticism of Fonda's anti-war activism. Now that I think about it, I can think of several places on the internet where there are statements that many Americans believe we could have won the war if it had not been for the protests of Fonda and other anti-war activists. But on the other hand, Fonda was only one of many war protesters. I agree, there are probably other statements in this article that are not cited and should be. I have this page on my watchlist and when I saw your edits, I felt like your goal was to smear Fonda's reputation. But I know that an encyclopedic and neutral article often needs to include criticisms like these, if they are verifiable. Just be glad I didn't revert your contributions immediately.

Andrea Parton 15:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Additionally, you might be interested to read what Jimbo Wales has to say about unsourced material, especially negative biographical information on living persons. [1]

Andrea Parton 15:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you. Perhaps someone with greater ability than mine will come along and provide proper citations. However, don't forget that JF not only purposefully inserted herself into the eye of the storm, she actively profited and benefited from her role as war protester. She would not be nearly so famous today without this feather in her cap, and the assertion that some of those boys would be alive today with wife and kids is not so far-fetched. 69.109.124.102 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

Could some please contribute some information re: her record in Lebanon during the civil war - particularly her support for Israel/the US over the PLO regarding the PLO's evacuation and the subsequent massacres committed at Sabra and Chatila after the PLO was evacuated.

Winter Soldier Investigation

Removed from the article:

It is not apparent how much the anti-soldier efforts and rhetoric of VVAW before recorded participation by Fonda influenced her, nor her influence on the organization. Although Kerry participated in the discredited Winter Soldier Investigation, it is not known when VVAW participants became aware of the quantity of false testimony and soldier impostors.

Winter Soldier is hardly "discredited". One member of VVAW (Al Hubbard) admitted that he overstated his credentials (he was not a "soldier impostor") and repeated what he heard other people say as if it happened to himself. However, Winter Soldier involved many, many soldiers. This is an exaggeration at the least. Also, I'm a bit confused as to what that first sentence is supposed to mean; if you would care to elaborate, it would be helpful. Lets work constructively on this one. Rei 20:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

That first sentence is a connection back to the reference to Kerry as being influenced by Fonda. I don't know how much Fonda influenced VVAW nor how much VVAW influenced Fonda. And the "VVAW participants" was used so as to blanket VVAW, Kerry, and Fonda with a haze of innocence about their involvement. If you know something more definite about who knew what when and what they then did, speak up. Preferably with fewer pronouns than in my preceding sentence. SEWilco 07:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
If you'd follow the links back to VVAW and the Winter Soldier Investigation page, you'd find more elaboration. Or search the web for some of the terms mentioned here. SEWilco 07:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Have you ever read some of the Winter Soldier Investigation text? It brings back memories because it is very indicative of a lot of the thinking of the times. Let's just say it was very flawed, and questions of the authenticity of some of the "testifiers" is, shall we say, an open question. But it reflects its times; it is quirky and, at the least unbalanced and overblown. My friend and I wanted to join, but there was no one to sign us up where we were, but we did get "Friends of VVAW" badges or buttons, I forget which. Now I'm just as happy we didn't. I didn't know about Fonda's involvement at the time, and I didn't know the details of Winter Soldier. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I have. I've seen many cases where people question the authenticy of "some" of the testifiers, but when asked for names, the only one I've ever seen presented is Hubbard. Also, he is often referred to as being a "fake soldier", when in reality, he simply overstated his rank and repeated what he heard from others as being his own. Certainly, it speaks poorly for their vetting process - Hubbard was a fairly major figure. And indeed, the whole thing was overblown - from reading it, you'd think that everyone who went to Vietnam took part in war crimes, that all of the officers were racist, etc.  ;) Really though, most of it seems to be little more than the selection process - people who went to Vietnam and saw nothing bad weren't exactly likely to end up as part of Winter Soldier.
On the other hand, they did raise some serious issues - they talked about Free Fire zones, combat in Cambodia and Laos, etc. I mainly have a problem with reference to it as "discredited", and the nameless generalization of the people involved in it as "fakes". Rei 22:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Rei, this was 1971. Free fire zones, combat in Cambodia and Laos were old news. When I was in the Army (1967-69) we were talking about the "Parrot's Beak" in Cambodia. And Laos? The talk in the early '60s in the US wasn't Viet Nam. It was Laos, with the Pathet Lao, who were around since the '50s. One of the things that made the "domino theory" so compelling to the hawks was that Laos was the first, Viet Nam the second ...
The only "new" thing that I saw come out of Winter Soldier were charges of rampant racism and the charges that Kerry made before the Senate, alleging war atrocities as every day events. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion about Winter Soldier be in Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation, and here talk about Fonda? There have been links there and in Winter Soldier Investigation. And I'll put details in those pages and the VVAW pages. Someone want to clean up this page and move paragraphs over there? SEWilco 07:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

POV edits?

Could somebody look into the edits by [User:Calstan]. He appears to have done a series of deletions which skew the bias of the article, both by removing the second point of view and adjusting the language used. However I'm not familiar enough with the Wikipedia position on reverting and NPOV to be comfortable acting. (unsigned by User:Lod 26 October)

I looked at the Calstan edits from 21 October. Most of the comments that were removed appear to have been mentioned by the contributor in a derisive tone (i.e. "vegetable oil-powered bus"). Further, several of the comments contained disputed interpretations, such as the distribution of FTA, described variously as abruptly pulled or suppressed.
If you have specific passages you'd like to discuss for inclusion, please add them here. Jokestress 17:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Photograph

An anon deleted the reference to the faked Fonda/Kerry photo, thus leaving the impression that any such photo people see is genuine. In the paragraph mentioning Kerry, the second sentence should be replaced with something like:

Republicans circulated a photograph showing Fonda and Kerry in the same large crowd at a 1970 anti-war rally, although they were sitting several rows apart. [2] Some also circulated a faked composite photograph to give the impression that the two had shared a speaker's platform. [3]

The fake achieved wide enough currency to merit correction here. JamesMLane 19:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the news

Ms. Fonda is in the news currently because of the incident in which a man spit in her face at a book signing. I realize everyone loves to add up to the second information and the wiki facilitates that nicely, but I'm wondering if that's really relevant material for a person's biography. I tend to be of the philosophy that people who do things like this don't deserve to have their actions glorified, especially given that nothing came of this event other than having to wipe the mess off her face (therefore it's both irrelevant and unimportant). Before removing it I'll see what you people think. 130.207.77.64 03:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree - Danny Beardsley 08:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about glorifying (or not glorifying) people's actions. It's about recording knowledge. The event happened. It is a graphic and powerful indication that some people still consider Ms Fonda a traitor for what she did. I think it is significant. Logophile 10:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Captain Planet and the Planeteers

Jane Fonda co-produced Captain Planet and the Planeteers?! OMFG! --Abdull 21:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I read this bio. It is hugely biased. I read it because I thought maybe after all these years, she'd done something to make up for the hurt she contributed to. She does, to her credit, continue to be outspoken. She has marginally contributed to other human rights causes but has not made, as far as I can see, much with her potential. Probably because of her extremeism and inability to appreciate subtlety. THE defining picture of Jane is not her in a business suit at age 60+. We all know what the defining picture is, and it is not cropped to eliminate the context (i.e. the weapon she straddles aimed to kill american servicemen). Until you put it in, this really is incomplete. I wish Jane well, hopefully I will never be in the same room as her. DNE 9-11-2005

This page has a critic

This page has a critic in the blogosphere ... see http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php . Pcb21| Pete 15:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is crap

"Fonda objected to being called a sex symbol, as a feminist she didn't want to be objectified" Cmon, we are talking about Barbarella ! She loved it !

Jimbo sez so. Lets get cleaning~! Sam Spade 21:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Which sections need the most work? You put a cleanup tag on the article but you haven't listed any problems with the article. You just link to another page that makes a few negative comments about the article. --JamesB3 22:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have you read the article? 3 people are saying it is crap right now. 1. is me. another is some blog writer guy cited above. A third is Jimbo, our sites founder! Lets just see if theres anything we can do, eh? Sam Spade 22:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, God. Reading the "early years" section was so painful, I couldn't go on. Practically every sentence has nothing to do with the ones preceding and following it. And suddenly at the end, we jump to her 2005 memoirs. Crap, indeed. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the entire thing is crap, but I did notice that the "Jane's regrets" section repeated the same information over and over. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If people have an objection to the article then they should edit what they feel is poorly done, instead of just complaining about what bothers them. The article is not perfect, but if people don't want to make any changes to reflect the complaints they have, I wonder how many people really think the article is such "crap". --JamesB3 19:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Sheesh. I specifically said that "crap" might not be the best word to define it. Plus, maybe I should have made it more clear, but I'm not sure which sections to reduce, and I was looking for community input. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think there is a problem then you should edit what concerns you and then if someone else disagrees they will revert the edit. I do agree that the regrets area is a bit repetitive. I suppose I was bothered because people in the talk area have said the article is awful but never offer any suggestions or edits of their own. If you have some ideas then more power to you. I should also point out to the people who think the article is awful that most of the time (up until recently) this article has been heavily vandalized over and over and over. So much time has been spent reverting the article from repeated vandalism that there hasn't been as much time or focus to clean up anything. --JamesB3 06:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations. This article was one of two even discussed in german press for being a radiant example of crap in english wikipedia. The articles were founded on Nicolas Carrs critic and is said to be backed up by Jimmy Wales in this particular case! They even start to doubt the theory of "collective intelligence" here. And I thought only the germans would fxxx up at "Freimaurerei" etc. Clean it fast, plz! ANd take the job a little more serious - writing is a craftmanship. MAdayar, --80.171.188.153 21:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that most of the people who complain about the article never actually want to work on the article themselves? There isn't a glass wall separating the talk page and the article itself. --JamesB3 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps because complaining about the article and being told "fix it yourself" is like going to a restraunt, complaining about the food, and being told "cook it yourself"? -unsigned
"Fix it yourself", huh? Consider this: If I would know enugh about Jane Fonda to write a complete online dictionary entry about her, do you REALLY think I would look her up in wikipedia? Not EVERYBODY can fix an article, especially not a biographical one. So, JamesB3, if you think anybody can fix just anything, maybe I know now why so many articles are so crappy. I would never DARE write about a topic I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about. Many people seem to ignore their lack of knowledge quite successfully. I addition I'm not a native english speaking member of the worldwide humanity. I don't think it would be senseful to correct an english text, although I'm a writer in my country. Many people consultate Wikipedia to achieve knowledge about something they haven't heared about ever before. And it is extremely important to deliver that information clearly and understand<able. Whoever tried that here, failed miserably. That's my two cents, keep the change. Madayar, --80.171.192.235 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
But several of the people who came into the talk section not only said the article was poor, they pointed out specific sections that were poor. So when they point out specific areas, then yes, I do think that maybe they could edit what they don't like. As for 'failing miserably', the article is not perfect but does an adequate job of detailing her life and career. If someone has no idea who Jane Fonda is, then they will get a pretty good idea from the page. I've seen much worse, especially when you consider that for months the article was vandalized time and time again and people were concerned with cleaning that up. As for "fix it yourself", that is a quote from one of the articles. I never used such a harsh term. I said that people could edit what they didn't like since this is a collaborative process. And it is. If someone goes to the page to learn about Jane Fonda, they will. If they know enough about her, or about grammar or structure, that they are outraged by the article, then they have the option of making changes. --JamesB3 00:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The problems with that are that you pay for your food and you pay to have trained professionals cook your food. You can't just go cook the food yourself. You CAN edit Wikipedia if you object to the content. --JamesB3 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Telling someone "fix it yourself" is juvenile and unhelpful. Your average Internet viewer will just ignore the article and instead head off to Google if it is not useful. -unsigned

Personally I think that saying the article has problems and then doing nothing about those problems is more unhelpful. I'm not trying to tell people that they shouldn't criticize the article. What I am saying is - if you think the article is "crap", then you have the power to change the article as you wish. That's the good thing about Wikipedia. I would imagine that the average person who reads Wikipedia would know how to edit an article if they feel the article is horrible. --JamesB3 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Pay attention and don't ask again who is calling it crap and why doesn't he just fix it himself. At Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2005 we read "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems, by Andrew Orlowski in The Register, 18 October 2005. [4] refers to Bill Gates, Jane Fonda and Jeanette Washington. The article refers to this email by Jimmy Wales dated Thu Oct 6 21:01:29 UTC 2005 stating "But the two examples he puts forward are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment. Bill Gates and Jane Fonda are nearly unreadable crap". WAS 4.250 04:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to fix it up, but I don't know much of anything about Jane Fonda. I do know, though, that this writeup is a horribly muddled, random bit of work with no clear focus and no notion of what's important and unimportant in Fonda's life. In short, yes, it is crap, and it doesn't take a biographer to see that. Koyaanis Qatsi 05:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I apologize if you think I'm not paying attention. I know who called the article crap, because the original article has been mentioned several times on this page. At first I wasn't sure who said what but then I realized who the comments were from, and sure, there is some validity in the comments. I never asked the original author of the postings or the article to edit the article himself, because he has never posted on this page as far as I know. If one of the Wikipedia people thinks the article is crap, that's fine. The page can be locked. Or the page can be deleted. Instead it seems to just sit there and a few people come to reference the same article a few different times. I just think that if people object to the content or wording of the article, they should edit what they don't like. That's the point of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if that seems rude, because it isn't intended to be rude. It just seems like common sense to me. The article you link to is basically objecting to any format that involves readers contributing to a Wikipedia entry, as far as I can tell, since an edit-based format is the equivalent of "doing it yourself". Even the many fine or acceptable entries on the site are based on people doing it themselves. The whole site is built on people contributing. The resturant analogy is flawed - it's more of a potluck supper, for lack of a better description. --JamesB3 06:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I know this debate seems to have ended a while ago, but I do agree with JamesB3 about the point of Wikipedia. That being, if you see a problem with an article, it is your responsibility to fix it as much as it is within your power. Yes, this article has some quality problems, and no, I know nothing about Jane Fonda, but that won't stop me from working on the grammar, syntax, structural, and POV errors that can be found within. Wikipedia is about the users coming together to create a collective knowledge base, not about pointing fingers at articles that need work and complaining without doing something productive about it. Gnosis1185 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is skewed heavily towards favoring what she did in Vietnam, etc. There a parenthetical statements that heavily influence the POV and hold no encyclopedic value. 70.162.112.213 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded Youknowthatoneguy 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC). Sorry I didn't log in for that last statement :D.

Watch for Copyvio

I was just editing the "Acting career" section and came across huge chunks of text that had been copied were suspect. I think I got most of it in that section, but it is something to look out for in other sections. Sunray 08:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

From where? Be careful it isn't a mirror copying from us. Pcb21| Pete 09:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The site was adoption.com. It fooled me, as it is not a mirror and the article on Fonda was significantly different from our article, but on looking more closely I note that it does use material from Wikipedia so I guess it wasn't a copyvio. Oh well, it probably got a better revision that way as I re-wrote it rather than just edited. Sunray 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

When did she announce that she wanted to make worthy films?

Fonda announced that she would only make films that focused on important issues, and she generally stuck to her word. She turned down An Unmarried Woman because she felt the part was not relevant.

Anyone know when she announced this? The para sticks out a bit without a date... e.g.

In 1977, Fonda announced...

chocolateboy 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This was referenced in the second edition of The Great Movie Stars (I think that was the name of David Shipman's book). He didn't give an exact date, but listed the quote from around that time. --JamesB3 22:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Ta.

chocolateboy 22:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Carr criticism???

Forgive me for such a silly question, but I was reading through a Wikinews article about Wikipedia's mix reviews which uses Nicholas Carr's critique as an example. After visiting Carr's blog, I decided to look up the two articles in Question Jane Fonda and Bill Gates; he gave a verbatim excerpt of those articles; I have gone back through our edits and unfortunately I can not find where that article is; Even our first edit on Jane Fonda had more info than he states, His article says it was written on Oct. 3, 2005 yet in November of 2004 the content looked like this. Can someone please explain this to me -- I must be missing something here, my bad. ~ RoboAction 06:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the article as it was in 2004? It reads like a poorly written fanzine, with incomplete sentences and numerous gramatical errors. The article remained bad until a week or two after Carr's article. Since then, it has improved somewhat. Sunray 06:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

In "Hanoi Jane" it says "she expressed some regret for her actions sixteen years later, but never apologized to Vietnam veterans and their families." But four paragraphs down in "Fonda's regrets" she says "I want to apologize to them and their families." That's kind of confusing, but I think there might be a reason for it so I don't want to make the edit. --Foofy 07:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I aggree. I'm not sure why the article double talks this way. Could someone please clear this up? --Gogabego 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

About Jane being a sex symbol

"Fonda objected to being called a sex symbol, as a feminist she didn't want to be objectified"

Cmon, we are talking about Barbarella ! She loved it an it showed ! Somebody get a pic of her in Barbarella wardrobe ! Every woman would love to be as beautiful as Jane Fonda. I heard her on Larry King lately, saying that sometimes she looks in the mirror and thinks to herself "I am the luckiest woman in the world"


Religious Journey

Should there be something in this article about Jane Fonda's spritual views, throughout her life, and her recent statements that she is a Christian? Mokwella 23:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Go ahead and add something on that to the article. Sunray 08:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Allegations edit war

"these allegations have been dismissed as an urban myth" vs. "these allegations have not been confirmed" is at least on the verge of being an edit war. One side claims "it is easy to prove something happened, it is nearly impossible to prove something never ever happened". It seems, though, that "the allegations have not been confirmed" implies that there are some who still support the discounted allegations. Since the Snopes article referenced immediately after the statement discounts the rumors, it seems more accurate to say that the allegations have been dismissed as an urban myth. Do some claim that the Snopes article is inaccurate? The Rod 21:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Also see negative proof. chocolateboy 10:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I only say that Snopes jumped to a conclusion. Again, it is quite possible to prove something happened, but it is nearly impossible to prove something never happened. Perhaps a tweak to the wording is in order. Inconclusive perhaps? Ordrestjean 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. How about we excerpt a little from the Snopes article? I suggest this revision:
Although e-mail messages allegedly from former POWs state that Fonda handed over information from U.S. prisoners of war to NLF insurgents (better known in the U.S. as the "Viet Cong"), the POWs named in the e-mail messages "have repeatedly and categorically denied the events they supposedly were part of."
Does that sound neutral? The Rod 16:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
---
Again, it is quite possible to prove something happened, but it is nearly impossible to prove something never happened.
"Again", see the negative proof fallacy.
I only say that Snopes jumped to a conclusion.
And you are?
Does that sound neutral?
No. Kicking up a fuss doesn't make it so. Snopes is a reputable source, and manifestly has dismissed the allegation as an urban myth. Reword the sentence when the Snopes article has been debunked by another reliable source.
chocolateboy 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I previously added a section to Fonda's article with quotes which affirmed her support for communism in the 1970's. Although I cited the source of the quotes, it was not long before someone added a sentence stating that the quotes were never confirmed to have come from Fonda, and not long after that before someone deleted them altogether.

I mentioned this on the talk page to establish consensus. If you think it is best not to include these quotes, we will not include them. I added them only to try to make the article more complete, not as an insult to Jane Fonda. In fact, I am a communist myself, but I know that communism has historically been very unpopular, and that many people still have not forgiven Fonda for her role in the Vietnam War, and so I think it may be preferable not to include these quotes. I don't know whether Fonda still considers herself a communist, or if she ever truly did for that matter. If anyone knows, say something here.

Additionally, I would like for this to be a featured article. I think we have cleaned it up enormously since last October when Jimbo told us it was nearly unreadable, and I want to thank everyone who has helped. If anyone reading this has any disputes, complaints, suggested improvements, or other concerns or ideas regarding this article, please post them here. After all of our issues are resolved, I plan to nominate this article for peer review.

Andrea Parton 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just modified this section's heading, and I went ahead and nominated this article for peer review, but I still would like feedback on whether others think this article should include something on Fonda's support for communism? Also, I know that Fonda dealt with bulimia for much of her early life, but I don't know whether that should be mentioned in her article. What do you think? Andrea Parton 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder whether the section on Fonda's romantic relationships should be restructured, perhaps putting details regarding her three marriages in paragraph form rather than as a bulleted list. Andrea Parton 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

liberal "christians"??

The two words are almost mutually exclusive. If she considers herself born again, then it's very hard to believe that she's also liberal, in the way it's defined nowadays. It's possible she really did repent and receive Christ into her heart by faith, and is simply very naive about what Christianity teaches and practices. Sadly, it's also possible that she's a "nominal" Christian, and hence, not actually saved.Jlujan69

I'm not at all certain where you're coming from. Many dedicated Christians are also liberal people and be aware that there are many more ways to be "liberal" than to subscribe a political view or movement. As to Ms. Fonda, I have no idea what "born again" and "liberal" mean to her if a personal sense, or as a matter of faith. -- Cecropia 06:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term "liberal" has changed over the years. In times past, abolotionists and civil rights (in the Martin Luther King vein)activists were considered liberal. Now, their views are mainstream. These causes were morally justified and completely biblical. However, some of the issues that today's liberals typically support are immoral and simply not biblical--less restrictive abortion and homosexual marriage, for example. While I believe there are Christians who do support these latter causes, I believe that they are misguided in their notions.Jlujan69 07:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually know many liberal Christians. They support feminism, LGBT rights, etc. In my opinion, this does not make them any less "true" Christians than their conservative counterparts. Even though I'm not a Christian, I know that the bible says that greed and bigotry are sins, and that seems to be something that many (possibly most) religious conservatives have forgotten. Andrea Parton 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jane's earliest years

The main article could be improved if a word or two were added on her early years. Which high school did she graduate from? Did she go to her senior prom?

Where did she pick up her French? Can she speak Spanish and German as well? Did she study those languages in high school, or did she pick them up travelling around the world?

"Jane Fonda hates America"

"Jane Fonda hates America"?

That is a pretty subjective statement. I think it should be taken out.

Table

As you know, this article includes a table which lists Fonda's most notable films, both alphabetically and by year. The problem with the table is that many editors do not know how to edit HTML tables and just end up messing it up. I just reverted the edits of someone who messed up this table and I have messed it up myself before. Maybe someone could look at this and see if something could be done. Andrea Parton 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Recently, Vietnamese historians have suggested that after the Tet Offensive, which ended with a superior and devastating victory against the Viet Cong forces, Fonda's and other activists' anti-war efforts literally turned the tide back against the American forces. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] The North Vietnamese realized that, while they were losing the war on the battlefield, they had the potential to achieve victory in the political arena within the United States itself. Thus, Fonda's trip to Hanoi is seen by many veterans of the Vietnam War as emblematic of the internal defeat experienced by the American pro-war factions. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] The American casualties during Fonda's activist period exceeded 20,000 deaths. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

Until we can get some reliable sources for this opinion, I am removing this material from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of an AA gun was it?

I would guess it was a 57 mm S-60 anti-aircraft gun or a M1939 37 mm anti-aircraft gun. Does anybody have acces to some good pictures of that ant-aircaraft cannon? Mieciu K 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Need more References

i like that she support Newton et al but you need the references. It not that i disagree but i want to use it and i need to learn more, but we all need the source---Halaqah 12:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

64.162.197.70 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Why were four perfectly good external links at the bottom of this article removed this morning?

Jonathan Harvey

Romantic Relationships

"L.A Rapper Mickey Avalon released a sond titled Jane Fonda in late 2006 notweworthy due to the fact that it is one of the first songs released on MySpace records." -- What does this have to do with Romantic Relationships? Isn't this more like trivia? --Mikala Arteaga 21:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be mentioned in the Romantic Relationships section. I really don't know if it's notable at all. Andrea Parton 01:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

An Article on Jane Fonda with No Mention of Her Support for North Vietnam?

For Wikipedia to have any credibility, it can't simply omit a major chunk of a person's public life.


Dyke or Dike

It seems that both spellings of this word are legitimate but it seems we should standardize on a single one. When first reading the page I had thought it was vandalized till I checked to see that "dyke" was indeed a proper variant of "dike". 63.73.225.234 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image in the infobox needs to be replaced with one of a younger, more attractive Jane Fonda, not one of her in her 50s signing books.Fistful of Questions 04:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

how about the anti-aircraft gun one Furiouszebra 07:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah!

time, distance, Internet

Theres something wrong with "The POW camp visits [1972] also lead to persistent stories - widely circulated on the Internet and via email [ca. 1990s]" that requires that section to be rewritten to put it into context. -Ste|vertigo 01:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian or Buddhist?

The intro paragraph claims that she has been Buddhist since 2001. Later, under "Christianity", it claims that she became a Christian in 2001. Which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.210.147.94 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Wow

What a bunch of left-leaning POV crap. Articles like this drag down what Wikipedia aspires to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.30.129 (talk • contribs) Have to agree.. I love wiki but this is the same ol left justification bias.*You dont't like it? Then fix it. Mieciu K 00:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Constructive criticism of articles is what Wikipedia needs. Calling anything "crap" here serves no useful purpose. Furthermore, I don't see any bias here for her or against her, just a lot of verifiable historical information, that is commonly known by her supporters and detractors alike. T.E. Goodwin 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no criticism section here, yet nearly every notable conservative has a bogus criticism section filled with "references" that come from op-ed pieces. It's a total crock. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, having a separate section for criticism is discouraged by the manual of style. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view. So, rather than advocate the creation of a criticism section here, I think you may find it more productive to work towards bringing the criticism sections of the notable conservatives into compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines. Of course, if you have any more specific suggestions for the present article, then I'm sure they would be appreciated. Silly rabbit 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fonda and the Dykes

Fonda’s trip to Vietnam inAugust 22, 1972, where she made the allegation that the US was attacking the Red River dyke, despite Tom Haden’s commentary, was little more than a Potemkin style show, courtesy of her tour guides.

Although several targets on the dykes were attacked (AA artillery and the like) the US never attacked the dyke system, because had they really meant to destroy it, it would have been destroyed. The damage she saw was from non bombing related flooding, as the civilian population that would normally maintain these were involved in other war related efforts. The article Bombing of Vietnam's dikes, has more information including sources for this (among them Seymour Hersh). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

jane fonda's ancestry

whereas in the wikipedia it is stated that Henry Fonda has distant Italian ancestry. Jane herself on a several visits to the Netherlands stated that their family's roots lie in the north of the Netherlands in the Province of Friesland. The Fonda name like so many Friesian names end on -a (compare Buwalda, Wiersma etc.). Jane herself stated on one of her visits that the first name Douwe appears a lot in their family. Which is a typical Friesian first name. Also she stated that whenever she visits the Netherlands, she goes up to Friesland to trace her roots. 86.42.29.38 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

her actions in Vietnam

April 27, 2007 I had read on a message board that Jane Fonda visited a POW camp in Vietnam. Soldiers were tortured there. She shook the hands of the American soldiers being held there. 4 men slipped her their social security numbers on small bits of paper. She immediately handed the papers over to the man holding them prisoner. 3 of the 4 men were shot and killed. Now I didn't know anything about Jane Fonda before reading about that. I came here to find out more. It seems pretty important and I think the incident should be included (assuming it's factually correct). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KannD86 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Read the article again, this urban legend is mentioned there and dismissed. See: Political activism - "Hanoi Jane" - paragraph four. VirtualDelight 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Like most of the anti-war liberals from the '60's, she demoralized the troops and cost American lives. Plus, they never came to terms with the fact that there were evil people in North Vietnam, and they killed more people after we left than we killed while we were there. Fonda is a liberal idealist that doesn't realize the world has evil people in it. She will die with blood on her hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.239.130 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.239.130 (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why people hate her. Isn't it universally agreed the Vietnam war was a *bad thing*?? Surely she should be a hero for protesting against it. --86.135.178.19 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, her actions were not appropriate. A person may legitimately criticize the actions of the United States, but for a U.S. citizen to travel to the enemy's land, and cheer while the enemy is firing antiaircraft missiles at U.S. planes is, in my view, is treason and she deserves the punishment historically accorded to traitors.

John Paul Parks (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, ok. Anyway, even if the rumors about her giving the letters to the North Vietnamese are incorrect, you can not catagorically deny them based on an article on Snopes.com. Furthermore, the word "debunked" has connotations that suggest a POV. Mrathel (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

education

anyone know where she went to high school —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.145.27.35 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

There is no mention in the list of Jane's movies of her 1966 movie called "The Game is Over" Her ex-husband Roger vadim made this movie. It was in french w/subtitles. (Sorry I don't have tildes on my computer) 


(talk) 05:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New paragraph

I noticed that someone recently added a new paragraph to the "Hanoi Jane" section, someone else deleted it, and then someone else reverted the deletion, considering it vandalism. The paragraph definitely needs to cite sources or be removed, as it could potentially be considered libelous. Andrea Parton 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you writing that Jane Fonda passed information to the Viet Cong. She was in Hanoi. The headquarters of the North Vietnamese Army which was very different from the Viet Cong. 70.113.212.209 14:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

I see an anon placed a neutrality tag on the article. I came here looking for something to look into and found nothing. What is in dispute specifically? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't place the neutrality tag on the article, but did come by and see it. I wonder if the problem is that the article says
"The POW camp visits also led to persistent stories—widely circulated on the Internet and via email—that the POWs she met had reviled her or attempted to sneak notes to her, which she had reported to the North Vietnamese, leading to further abuse. There are those who claim that these are false accounts. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that the statements have been discredited by the former prisoners who are directly mentioned in the accounts."
These looks like weasel words to me, trying to support the idea that the story is, in fact, true.
Snopes is given as a cite. However, Snopes seems to me to claim the opposite:
"The most serious accusations in the piece quoted above, that Fonda turned over slips of paper furtively given her by American POWs to the North Vietnamese and that several POWs were beaten to death as a result, are untrue. Those named in the inflammatory e-mail have repeatedly and categorically denied the events they supposedly were part of." Snopes article on Fonda POW allegations
75.52.93.45 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The tag is for the complete article, so I am going to remove it. It doesn't help there if there is not more discussion here as to what is to be improved. If a tag belongs in the section mentioned above, then lets tag the section. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Barbarella23.jpg

Image:Barbarella23.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Promiscuity

I took out the line about Fonda's alleged promiscuity during college. First, it was in the Acting Career section, to which it has no relevance, and second, there are no references given, which I think is essential for a statement that some would see as a negative characterization. Mrquizzical (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Majority of Political activism section needs to be removed as it's uncited

Almost the entire "Political activism" section is in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people and needs to be removed immediately. I realize there should be plenty of reliable sources to cite for these items, but until those citations are included it needs to go. Anyone want to attempt to cite or should I just go ahead and delete. Thought I would ask on the talk page at least since this article is probably getting a fair share of traffic today. I also thought removing immediately would cause edit warring from those editors that might not be familiar with Wikipedia:Biographies of living people or understand that it is the responsibility of the editor adding the controversial material to cite it when initially including it.--Roswell native (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Romantic relationships section has the same problem. Not a single citation. --Roswell native (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


This blacklisted domain stateuniversity.com has this page: http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/11271/Jane-Seymour-Fonda.html which is an obvious derivation of wikipedia's article Jane Fonda. Or else both pages are derivatives of a third source but that looks unlikely considering stateuniversity.com has hundreds of similar wikipedia "derivatives". So, I added an entry to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Stu#encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com in case anyone wants to follow up. 84user (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Marriages or children

No mention of her marriages or children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.247.240 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I would think her marriage to Tom Hayden of the Chicago 7 would be pertinent to this article. How about mention of her son Troy Garrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.250.29 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing section - blog advertising

There is a statement in the Writing section of this article that seems to be written like an advertisement. The article states that Jane Fonda's blog is "informative" and "fascinating." I think a more neutral point of view is possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmotivate (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam in context.

The life time of abuse Ms Fonda has endured for her visit to Vietnam is puzzling. Many U.S. Service Men in Vietnam had Peace Symbols on their Uniforms and helmets, also slogans such as Stop The War. During demonstrations tens of thousands of Americans over the years of the War carried North Vietnamese Flags. American Service men have been found guilty of actually assisting the Vietcong during the war. They are now forgotten. Yet over and over Ms Fonda is subjected to harassment and abuse, while nothing is said of the thousands of other Americans who supported Peace during that War. Can the Wikipedia Page explain this victimisation of Jane Fonda?.Johnwrd (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not without it being original research. The fact is, this page is a frequent target of such harassment and as long as there are those who believe that Fonda did something treasonous, and nothing is published that examines this phenomenon, it will continue. I think Jane Fonda#"Hanoi Jane" covers the origins of these perceptions fairly well. It wasn't the opposition to Vietnam War that was the controversy, it was the 1972 trip to Hanoi. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe people are still upset that she sat on an anti-aircraft gun that was used to kill Americans, or maybe the fact that she made radio broadcasts with an enemy the U.S. was in a conflict with. There is a big difference between a Vietnam vet wearing a peace symbol or some hippie protesting and Jane Fonda smiling as she sits on an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi.

It is not rocket science people.--Panzertank (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And that is exactly why no one wants to open those doors in a scholarly manner at this point. Feelings about it are entirely POV, not in any way a neutral opinion. And turning the discussion from covering it in the article to attempting to open a debate about it on her Wikipedia article talk page is inappropriate per WP:FORUM. She's used as a symbol for Vietnam rage. Not appropriate tangent here, Panzertank. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to the question asked about this person. Oy! --Panzertank (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, Panzertank. If you added the "Oy!" here, to your earlier comment, you weren't logged in. Have a look. It looked like someone else adding to your comment, and it was right to remove it. Please just ensure you're logged in before you make an edit, and there will be no misunderstanding. Rossrs (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

GA assessment - reversal (manually) of all my edits

as the assessment states "a bit of cleaning" is needed.

the current state of the article as i found it is mixing styles. i'm sorry if i've ruffled any feathers. i would hope that the manual undoing of ALL edits i made is not any editor's problem with WP:OWNERSHIP? i didn't even attempt the mishmesh of the citation style. i'll hold off on further edits for a bit. --98.113.187.11 (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe's there some history in the article that I'm unaware of, but at least some of IP's edits were okay. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The assessment summary comments were posted on that page in September 2006, at a time when the article was nominated for featured article, but were unsigned, so I corrected that omission. When I looked at the myriad of edits that were made at one time, there were a number of style changes that didn't make a lot of sense to me. The systematic addition/change to including a year for a film in parentheses behind the film name from most cases where the year was included as part of the flow of the text was troublesome to me. It broke the flow of sentences. This style change was so vast in the edit that I didn't see the sense in trying to go through and revise that and leave the small amount of other changes. That it was by an editor whose contributions page was only 5 days old was also a deciding factor in reverting the article. For the record, there is usually a reason when someone reverts changes and we don't particularly charge in and insinuate it is a WP:OWN issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IP editor, you are mistaken in your interpretation of the above posting and thus posted wrong information in your edit summary when you reverted the article without further comment here. Once discussion starts, it's bad form to go ahead and revert and not respond once you made a bad faith insinuation of ownership. Even more so when you obviously don't understand where to look on this very talk page for article milestones to see when things occurred. The comments section you referenced was from 2006 when this article was nominated for featured article review. The article was reassessed and relisted on April 20, 2009. You are working from 3 year old, no longer valid or relevant notes. I agree with the above editor regarding your text changes - you have removed the language flow from the text of the article when you went through and stuck the years of films into parenthesis after each film name. It rendered the language of the article choppy. I also see no valid reason why you would go through and put line breaks in the middle of citations, it is a waste of effort. If you want to work on filling out some citations that you would like to see, fine, but please do not make edits that make the language of the article less polished. It would be a great benefit if you would post here and let the discussion complete before you charge ahead. Also, please explain the need to change from numerical entries to spelled out numbers. LaVidaLoca (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations, cites needed

Took out a few negative things that need sources per WP:BLP and put in Cites Needed for a few questionable places where needed. Snopes info should be used carefully per this discussion. Also things she alleged said in the book should have page numbers. Books google does have the book and snippet views are shown which sometimes will help identify actual page numbers. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the rumors regarding Fonda and the Snopes investigation which interviewed alleged victims, the site can be considered reliable. Opinion is mixed on some aspects on Snopes, but is widely help reliable for such things as urban legends like this. I was a bit puzzled by your not tagging another thing the IP added about an hour before you edited: "During this visit she also visited American prisoners of war (POWs). Some even tried to send written messages home with her, but she would turn them over to the Commandant." That was changed from something much more neutral, less inflammatory and it seems to me of all the things that were tagged in the article by you, this was the biggest WP:BLP issue in the entire article but was passed over in tagging. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Snopes, just making the point to whoever took out ref that nothing should be in there on that topic if there was no ref. I don't have a strong opinion on Snopes as a source which is why sent to the WP:RSN discussion.
Re: description, I was not dealing with POV issues, only WP:RS issues. The former would take more research than I have time for and others obviously more knowledgeable are active here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Elleged Prisoner Note Incident

Even if the elleged incident of the Prisoner Note Passing was true, it would have been ilegal for Ms Fonda to attempt to take such a note out of the Prison. Any one who has visited High Security Prisons knows, you as a visitor are searched entering and leaving the Prison. Not just Ms Fonda, but the Guards and other Prisoners would have been punished if Ms Fonda had attemted to take any such note out of Prison. The same Rules apply in High Security United States Prisons. It is likely the Authorities in the United States would regard such an act of handing over any such note (if it ever happened at all), as complying with the agreed upon Rules of Prisoner Detention and not as an act of Treason to the United States.Johnwrd (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jane Fonda/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A bit of cleaning needed, rather good otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefourdotelipsis (talk • contribs) September 2, 2006.

Last edited at 16:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 15:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Born again" Christian?

I have not read any reliable sources where Jane Fonda describes herself and being a "born-again" Christian; she simply says "Christian". There is a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.148.45 (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ms Fonda explained her Christian faith at a speech in Santa Barbara; 'I am a Christian who sees God as a God who is opposed to War, a God who hates the rape of the Environment, the Christ I see is a Christ who approves of same sex relationships'.Johnwrd (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In other words, she has modeled a "Christianity" completely to her own liking, and rejected its other aspects. John Paul Parks (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As, indeed, have most of the major denominations of Christianity and thus most of it's practitioners. AiFWww (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
And as have most "Christian" Conservatives who have seemed to have conveniently forgotten about things like mercy for the poor and the chances of a rich man getting into heaven.108.66.54.241 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Please keep discussions about the article and the OP's question, not personal opinion of ""Chistian" Conservatives" or otherwise. Editthat18 (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Article clean-up

Having read in the archives that some were critical of the choppy writing style in the first part of the article, I moved a few things around and did some rewording, trying to create a smoother flow. I removed reference to Peter Fonda being an actor in the ACTING, as that is referenced in the BACKGROUND section above. Also consolidated the school references into BACKGROUND, specified that she was signed with the Ford Modeling Agency to pay for acting classes, other fashion magazines that featured her on their cover in her modeling days, and spelled-out the various ages listed, to create consistancy. Hope this is agreeable to most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.65 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooops....someone reverted it all back. Well, I tried.
Okay, I have reverted back to my changes. Might someone please point out what they disagree with, if they feel my rearrangements, expansions and corections are unwarrented? Thank you. Codenamemary (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
And I will revert it back. You have come in to an article designated a good article and proceeded to break up content that rightly belongs in the same paragraph, added unsourced content, stuck in unsourced ages (where did you get those?) and basically mixed it all up. You weakened the flow of the article and have jeopardized the GA rating. That's why I reverted you the first time and that's why I am reverting it now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it looks like making changes here would be a torturous process, so shall leave you to it. But as an example of what I adapted, it doesn't make sense to follow "Fonda became interested in acting in 1954, while appearing with her father" in one section with "She recalled that at the age of five, she and her brother, actor Peter Fonda, acted out Western stories similar to those her father, Henry Fonda, played in the movies." Clearly, she had an interest in acting at age 5, which is why I added "became interested in acting professionally" to the earlier reference. Also, that sentence about the games doesn't make sense, because if you deconstruct it, it's not gramatical to say her father "played western stories in the movies". And why should Her brother, Peter Fonda (born 1940), and her niece Bridget Fonda (born 1964), are also actors. She is the mother of Vanessa Vadim from her marriage to Roger Vadim and Troy Garity from her marriage to Tom Hayden be in her "Background" section? Those first two sections I edited are rather patched-together and incongruous as it stands now, and, since you reject my changes and I'm not interested in debating these obvious oddities in the article much deeper, I will merely encourage editors to pay some extra attention to them. If you cannot see that the edits strengthen the entry (such as putting all her education in one place, and elaborating on her early modeling career), then okay. Best wishes Codenamemary (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Then why are you still going on about it? You made changes and added content that wasn't sourced, such as "figuring" her age. The entire family relationships are covered in background, that's fine. Cutting the brother and children into a separate paragraph doesn't fix anything. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox photo

An editor came through and removed the 2005 photo of Fonda File:Jane Fonda 2005.jpg and replaced it with one from the mid-1990s File:Jane Fonda Cannes nineties.jpg. I reverted that mostly because we tend to use more recent photos in the infoboxes and not ones showing the currently working actor from a previous decade. Another editor reverted me, saying "Bzzzt; Cannes photo is perfectly acceptable". Yeah, well, it's a photo, but it's at least 15 years old and doesn't represent Fonda as she looks today. Consider that she's still a working actor and we should present her as she looks now. Thoughts and comments please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd respectfully say that between the 2, I prefer the shot that shows more of her face. The one from a book signing has her in dark glasses, and is taken from above, which doesn't really let you see her face so much. Perhaps there's a more current, full-face shot that doesn't violate any copyright policies? Codenamemary (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking one way to get a more current free use (or whatever you call it) image of Fonda might be to take a screen capture from any news interviews she did to promote Monster in Law or Georgia Rule, or any of her more recent activities? I was watching a documentary lately, and they claimed news footage can be used by anyone. So, maybe there isn't a difference between a screen capture from news footage, and actual news footage? Just trying to think of a solution that might make people happy. Wildhart, do you know if this might be acceptable, as per wiki rules?Codenamemary (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't. A screencapture of a copyrighted work is still from a copyrighted work. That only legitimately works for captures from something non-copyrighted, like film trailers whose copyright status has expired. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just want to comment that the text just prior to footnote #19 is not only poorly worded and grammatically incorrect, it's also pure bias and not fit for inclusion. Currently, the text reads as follows:

"...Fonda gave a speech saying; "I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists." Even though those communists killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Jayne Fonda killed many Americans when they were POWs she turned them in when they told her to tell their family they were okay. The Communists would torture or murder those poor Americans. [19]"

The quote may be accurate - that I do not know - however, what follows the quote is idiocy. 8 mouse 8 (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That is vandalism and it has been removed and the page protected from IP editing due to content additions like that. It violates WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to nuclear power

I'm adding information from Three_Mile_Island_accident to her article her about political activism. Wikieditorpro (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

I have some qualms about it. Her made-for-TV movie "A String of Beads" is not listed. And "archival footage" does not count as filmography, so it should be removed. And why are her "self" appearances listed in her filmograhy? Those should be removed.Closeminded8 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentions nothing of her 1970 arrest for drug smuggling?

Come on Liberals, wake up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.159.105 (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason to this comment? AiFWww (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
liberals? stop being an american centric please, bush did drugs and nobody cares (also choked on a pretzel and didn't die, sadly enough) Markthemac (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The "drugs" turned out to be vitamins and the "arrest" appears to be harassment by the Nixon administration -- vitamins tested, charges dropped.GretDrabba (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lady Jane Seymour Fonda

So it says in one part (poorly cited by the way) that she is a distant relative to Lady Jane Seymour, wife of The King of England at that point in time.

However in the infobox it says her name is "Lady Jane Seymour Fonda". Is this an actual title, or is her first name actually Lady? What I mean to say is, she clearly is not a Lady of the Peerage. But if you are claiming she is, a citation for an actual peerage should be included somewhere. I'll look back in a week or so and if no one has changed it, or commented on this, then I will modify the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.93.46 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference theoretically backs up the sentence - though it certainly could have been altered after the fact, and should be checked again if there is a dispute to the entry. I don't think that the infobox is misleading, as it says she was born as "Lady...": it's not a title. Doc talk 06:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
From the reference cited:

They named me Lady Jayne Seymour Fonda. "Lady"! That was actually what the called me! Later, when I went to school, the cloth name tapes that had to be sewn onto my collar read LADY FONDA. Apparently I was related to Lady Jane Seymour, third wife of Henry VIII, on my mother's side.

Fat&Happy (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks good :> Doc talk 06:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hanoi Jane

During her visit to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda caused a captive, a USAID worker named Michael Benge, to be tortured for three days because he refused to co-operate in propaganda meetings with Jane Fonda. Also, a lot has been said about the anti-aircraft gun she sat at but little is known about the piece. It was a AZP-57 optical-mechanical computing site at the fire control position of a 57mm towed anti-aircraft gun (Soviet S-60/Chinese Type 59) of a three gun anti-aircraft battery. Dozens of photos were taken of her smiling, laughing and clapping at the gun emplacement. --re: "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006, pg. 217. Also: Here's something else I heard but have been unable to find any RS for: apparently President Nixon tried to assasinate Jane Fonda twice during her visit to North Vietnam with Black Ops teams but they were unable to get close enough to her to complete the mission. Anybody else heard anything about this or is it just an urban legend? 70.140.218.115 (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Her visits to the POW camp led to persistent and exaggerated rumors repeated widely in the press, and decades later have continued to circulate on the Internet. Fonda has personally denied the rumors..." Doesn't say what rumours. 109.154.7.66 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to repeat the rumors and exaggerations, as they are rumors and exaggerations. What she did is well documented and bad enough. There is no reason to add rumors. Tomsv 98 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In his 2010 book "Hanoi Jane: War, Sex, and Fantasies of Betrayal," Jerry Lembcke challenges and puts in context much of the Hanoi Jane imagery. "Hanoi Jane," he argues, has become a cultural trope that helps construct a betrayal narrative for why the war in Vietnam was lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.174.2 (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The alleged anti-aircraft gun photos resulted in a "phony scandal."173.72.111.87 (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)BaruchSzotero

usage of plebe

perhaps a link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebe_summer I had to look up what a plebe was and what it meant. There is currently no link. This is under the "Hanoi Jane" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.44.3 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Described as "communist" in google search result

Searching for Jane Fonda in google gives:

Jane Fonda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda - Cached Jane Fonda (born Lady Jayne Seymour Fonda; December 21, 1937) is an American actress, writer, communist, political activist, former fashion model, ... Frances Ford Seymour - Barbarella - Ted Turner - Vanessa Vadim

but this is not in the actual Wikipedia entry, which says:

Jane Fonda (born Lady Jayne Seymour Fonda; December 21, 1937) is an American actress, writer, political activist, former fashion model, and fitness guru.

Why the disparity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.11 (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The disparity existed for only a short period of time. Earlier today, someone editing as an IP address originating from the AAFES Barracks in Phoenix, Arizona (either someone in the National Guard or at Luke Air Force Base) vandalized the article and added "communist" to the opening paragraph. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1969, 1970, 1971 communist quote

In a 1970 address at Michigan State University Fonda gave a speech saying; "I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists."

I have looked and looked and can not find a reliable source. It seems to be another rumor passed along.

Many people pass along the quote on web pages, in book essays, etc., but I have yet to find the original source for this quote. People say 1969, or 1970, or 1971. Some say Michigan State University or University of Michigan.

If it is a true quote, then of course it should go in the article. But it would be a violation of WP:BLP to include it otherwise. "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.(Jimmy Wales. [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], May 16, 2006, and [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046732.html May 19, 2006]; Jimmy Wales. [http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives/Jimbo_Keynote Keynote speech], Wikimania, August 2006.) Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." --Timeshifter (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources for this quote. Apparently, the orginal can be sourced to Lee Winfrey of the Detroit free press. Since the Freep does not have digital archives from that time period and it doesnt show up in Google news arvhive, you would have to find it some other way. I did find a reference from a 1975 article that uses a verbatim quote from Winfrey's original article [5]. This, the fact that the quote has been so widely dublicated, the lack of even one source that refutes it and Fonda's politics means its highly likely that this is not just some rumor. Certainly the source I used in my last edit was reliable so how many more do you need? I too am puzzled by the discrepancy in the dates. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
He passes along an alleged quote. It seems lots of people pass on Jane Fonda quotes complete with alleged source and author. Many of these alleged quotes have been proven to be completely bogus. See the many examples given in the Jane Fonda article references.
There were only 4 results with this Google search for "detroit free press" "Lee Winfrey" "Jane Fonda":
http://www.google.com/#q=%22detroit+free+press%22+%22Lee+Winfrey%22+%22Jane+Fonda%22
None of the results mentioned this communism statement. With a statement this radical, I would think someone reliable in the mainstream media would have passed along the quote with detailed source info. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you stating the article I cited above doesnt qualify as a WP:RS? ZHurlihee (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It passes along the quote along with Lee Winfrey's name. This Google search below pulls up nothing that mentions the communism statement:
http://www.google.com/#q=%22Lee+Winfrey%22+%22Jane+Fonda%22+communism
It searches for "Lee Winfrey" "Jane Fonda" communism. This quote just has no basis in fact as far as I can tell. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As I've said at WP:BLPN, this has all the hallmarks of a phony quote. There appear to be no contemporaneous press reports to verify it, or even that Fonda appeared at the college in question (on the date involved or otherwise). There are multiple dates given for the quote, and multiple locations -- the earliest print reference I've seen, in 1972 puts it at Duke University, for example. If Fonda had said something like that, and it had been reported in a major newspaper, it would have been picked up in wire service reports and widely published. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If I were to find an original copy of the article and verify the quote, would that be sufficient? I might add that my local library is currently asking for a copy of two articles from the Detroit Public Library, the only place that has copies of the non digitized Free Press, and will have them for me within a week or so. The two dates are November 21 1970 and November 22 1969 and according to the index records Lee Winfrey published an article on both of those dates. If the quote is to be found in either, I would suspect it to be the November 21 1970 as she was in Detroit then. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It appears that the school is actually Central Michigan University. [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHurlihee (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Barbara L. Tischler

In the Bloch/Umansky book published by NYU Press, Barbara L. Tischler is the author of a chapter called "'Hanoi Jane' Lives: The 1960s Legacy of Jane Fonda". Tischler says Fonda spoke the pray-for-communism bit on November 22, 1969, at Michigan State University in East Lansing, on the occasion of the sixth anniversary of JFK's assassination.

Tischler is a lecturer and writer on the anti-war movement in the US. She is the director of curriculum at the Horace Mann School in NYC. She teaches US history at Teachers College, Columbia University. She is a Distinguished Lecturer with the Organization of American Historians. The editors who approved the Tischler chapter are both professors: Avital H. Bloch is a research professor at the Center for Social Research, University of Colima, Mexico, while Lauri Umansky is a professor of history at Suffolk University in Boston.

Rather than worry about finding the original copy in the Detroit Free Press, or worry about whether DFP reporter Lee Winfrey correctly transcribed the quote firsthand, or perhaps copied it secondhand, we can settle upon the quote as it appears in this scholarly book and run with it. If Tischler—sympathetic to Fonda—judged it worthy of inclusion then we have no reason not to include it. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Tischler, Barbara L. (2005). "'Hanoi Jane' Lives: The 1960s Legacy of Jane Fonda". Impossible to Hold: Women and Culture in the 1960s. NYU Press. p. 246. ISBN 978-0814799109. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
And as we all know, academics are infallible. For God's sake, that report's obviously dubious. Fonda's prominent political activity didn't even begin until 1970. In November 1969 she was promoting They Shoot Horses, Don't They and this is a typical example of her press at the time.[7] (The full-length piece originally ran in the New York Times, but it's behind a paywall. No political references in that version, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I just dropped a note to Tischler at her Columbia U. email to see if she can tell us what she used as a source. Until we can prove her wrong, we should stick with our guideline for reliable sources, which of course assumes that the scholarly source is correct. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
In her notes at the end of that essay she referenced other info but not the communism quote. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Our guidelines are not an intellectual suicide pact. Note that the source you're insistent on also has Fonda saying she'd met Huey Newton before the end of 1969, even though he was in California prison for killing a police officer until mid-1970. Sometimes academics make dumb mistakes, too, and WP:LEMMINGS is neither policy nor guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If I had Fonda's email, I'd ask her to come here and comment. :P
Newton's well documented time in jail puts a bad light on any other account placing him outside of lockup. However, we do not have an alibi for Fonda, saying she was elsewhere. I'm as curious as anyone to find out when or whether she said this bit. Ideally, we would find a dated first person account in some news publication. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible original source and claim of fabrication

The News and Courier (South Carolina), 29 December 1970, reports as follows: [8]

At Duke University, she engaged in the following dialog (as reported by Jesse Helms on WRAL-TV): Miss Fonda: "I believe that we have to strive for a transition to a socialist society. First..." Interviewer: "How far?" Miss Fonda: "All the way to communism. I mean I think we should, uh, I think we should all study what the word means and I believe that if everyone knew what the word meant we would all be on our knees praying that we would, as soon as possible, be able to live under, uh, within a communist structure." After quoting the statement, Mr. Helms pointed out that "the left-wingers deny that there is any communist motivation or provocation behind such agitators as Jane Fonda. And more important, the liberal news media refuse to tell the whole truth about what's going on."

Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America by Rick Perlstein (Simon and Schuster, 2008) says on p 517 that Jesse Helms invented the quote.[9] Helms was a fervent anti-communist and the N&C piece made clear he was making capital out of the quote. There's another supposed source: "Christian Anti-Communist Crusade", 1970, sources it to Michigan State University as reported in the Detroit Free Press, Sunday 22 November 1970.[10]. Fences&Windows 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting; I can believe it might have been a Helms invention. On the other hand, Perlstein's sweeping, colorful and dense book Nixonland, in turn, has been criticized for inaccuracies such as Perlstein saying that B-52 copilots wore sidearms to shoot the pilot if he did not follow orders to drop a nuclear bomb, and for saying that tanks were part of the National Guard response at Kent State, along with some more mistakes. His sweeping work is a marvelously fun read but it covered too much territory for everything in it to be well-researched. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This isnt the quote in question. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's the quote in question! Have you never played Chinese whispers? In the absence of a real quote to research, each journalist or author who quotes it mangles it in the process. By 1972 it was already changed as quoted by Paul Scott in the Lewiston Daily Sun on 27 Sept 1972. "On Dec, 11, 1970, in a speech at Duke University, Durham, NC, Miss Fonda stated: "I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope and pray on your knees that we would someday be communists. I am a socialist. I think that we should strive toward a socialist society - all the way to communism"."[11] You can see how the wording is rejigged and reordered to make it more of a soundbite, but the original source is plainly the Helms quote.
Binksternet, we have no real reason to doubt Perlstein's claim that the Fonda quote was fabricated by Helms, unlike our reasons to doubt the accuracy of the reporting of the academic who supplied a quote using the wrong year (1969). Perlstein slightly expands on his claim in a 2005 London Review of Books article, so he seems pretty sure about his facts: "They tapped their network of friendly media propagandists, like the future Senator Jesse Helms, then a TV editorialist, who supplied an invented quotation that still circulates as part of the Fonda cult’s liturgy. Supposedly asked – it isn’t clear where or by whom – how far America should go to the left, she said, according to Helms: ‘If everyone knew what it meant, we would all be on our knees praying that we would, as soon as possible, be able to live under . . . within a Communist structure.’" That makes clear he was referring to the quote I found and specifically stating that it was made up.[12]
Btw, I found a document by UNC-TV that refers to the Helms broadcast so we know the date now and this confirms the gist of the content: "broadcast #: 2481. date: 12-17-70. topic: Jane Fonda. comments: Uses recent speech at Duke University by Jane Fonda to criticize the actress. Maintains that she partakes in the long-standing tradition of liberals dismissing the notion of communist infiltration. Accuses the media of hiding Fonda’s communistic proclivities from the American people." [13] As for Helms' motivation, UNC-TV points out that in 1970, "As the United States sinks deeper into the Vietnam conflict, Helms switches political parties. Up until this point, despite his conservative views, Helms has been a registered Democrat", and another article on Helms says that "Using pious incitement--especially fears rooted in challenges to the South's racial arrangements-to undermine liberalism was central to his method on television."[14]
Bottom line: It's fair to say that we don't know whether Fonda even said it, what exactly she was supposed to have said, to whom, when, and where, and there's good reason to believe that it was invented by one of her political opponents. Including a disputed quote like this in a biography would be sheer folly. Fences&Windows 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
With the waters so muddied, it's wise to keep the bit out of the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I kept checking for a reliable source in the news, and found this thankfully. That clears things up. Dream Focus 00:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not clear up the muddled news sources, it simply adds on to the pile. What is needed at this point is a scan of a primary source, ideally Detroit Free Press. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the newspaper's online archive only goes back to 1999. Someone would probably have to travel to the Detroit main library to find a copy.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. If this many reliable sources say it, then we go with it, regardless if anyone personally doubts it. People were writing about this in the news back in the 1970's, and continuously since then. [16] Dream Focus 06:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep on dreaming. See WP:BLP. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I don't see anything on there concerning this. It has reliable sources, so its fine. Dream Focus 06:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Consider the word 'questionable'. We have supposedly reliable sources naming different colleges at which the speech was given, and different dates. Doesn't that make you think the quote is questionable? It does to me. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The Washington Times piece is an opinion piece which is never used in BLPs. Washington Times is notoriously unreliable in these type of ranty personal-voice articles, the authors generally relying on whatever they read on the internet without any fact-checking (I'm not sure if the Washington Times even has a fact-checking department anymore). We would need something a lot more reliable than that. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nickname

Added her nickname Hanoi Jane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey9999 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That was unnecessary and non-neutral. The issue is covered in detail in the Jane Fonda#"Hanoi Jane" controversy section.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

People know there as that name. That is not unneutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey9999 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Goodnight Jane Fonda"

The "Hanoi Jane" controversy cites students at the U.S. Naval Academy shouting "Goodnight, Jane Fonda", followed by "Goodnight, bitch." However, this practice has fallen by the wayside and is in fact prohibited by the Plebe Summer Standard Operating Procedures.

Jake.compton (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012

External links

184.78.81.245 (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Rivertorch (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Her sister?

Look, she maybe controversial, but even the Henry Fonda page mentions her adopted sister Amy. Needs to be added in the side bar next to her brother Peter. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

~Or half sister Frances noted both on Henry or Peter Fonda pages. 50.53.252.49 (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

drug charges

there's no mention of her drug smuggling charges either. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is probably more appropriate to an article on stupid police tricks or abuse of authority than here. [17] Fat&Happy (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning a celeb being against the Iraq war in the lead

I don't think that is appropriate to be mentioned in the lead, don't you? Fonda's opposition to the Vietnam War should be mentioned, since that is infamous. But the Iraq war and violence against women? Practically everybody is in Hollywood is against those issues, and you don't see that mentioned in the introductions on their Wiki pages. There's a section on Fonda's page that covers that, so why mention it in the lead? Shipofcool (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

She is an anti-war protester, hence the mention of her opposition to both the Vietnam & Iraq wars. She is also quite active world-wide in issues regarding violence against women, and there are several sections in this article detailing it. The lead is a summary of those sections. You may be correct that "Practically everybody is in Hollywood is against those issues", but how many of them demonstrate on the Gaza Strip, march on the National Mall, protest on the streets of Mexico or outside of the residence of Israel's Prime Minister? Exactly, and that's why you don't see it mentioned in the lead in their Wiki-articles. And yes, there was controversy generated on more than just her anti-Vietnam War activities.
Now what's with the "self-proclaimed" qualifier in the description of her as Christian?
Really good work on the rest of the article, by the way. Much cleaner. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for elaborating on that.

::Regarding the "self-proclaimed" qualifier, I'd googled the phrase "self-proclaimed Christian" just to see if it was a commonly used phrase (and it was) and thought it was appropriate for the article and would eliminate any ambiguity. Shipofcool (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need for "self-proclaimed" as a qualifier. If a person says they are a practicing member of a religion, we pass that statement to the reader. Only if that statement is questioned by others do we worry about balancing several viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not Alan Light!

An editor (Trudyjh (talk · contribs)) has complained on Jimbo's talk page that she tried several times to change the caption of the image in the Retirement and Return section to state that it shows Robert Redford, not Alan Light, but her changes were reverted. It seems pretty obvious that she is correct -- Light was the photographer, not the subject. Photos of Light can be found on the net in various places, and he doesn't look anything like that. Of course she should have raised the question here, but let's skip over that -- can we go ahead and fix this? Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that there appear to be two different Alan Lights ... one was an editor for Rolling Stones, Vibe, and Spin magazines (this appears to be the one that Trudyjh is saying the subject in this photo does not resemble). The one on Flickr from where this image is sourced claims to be a retired photographer. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
A quick search turned up a few additional photos claiming to be Alan Light and who appears to be the same person as in the questioned photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-light/255566969/ , http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-light/211177549/ , http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-light/211276377/ , and http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-light/210431823/ --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. Alan Light actually looked like that in 1990.
As you can plainly see, Alan Light has a passing resemblance to Robert Redford, but not enough to completely confuse the eye. The photo in question is certainly Light with Fonda, not Redford with Fonda. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jane Fonda to Star in ABC Comedy Pilot

According to a Variety story dated 24 Oct 2012, Fonda is going to star in a sitcom pilot to be shot for ABC, titled Now What? --173.76.62.253 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Age

She is now 75 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Doc talk 14:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Adopted daughter Mary

Where is mention of her adopted daughter Mary?

Bonnie and Clyde

It says she turned it down, but she said on Watch What Happens Live that it was a role she auditioned for and didn't get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.189.100 (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2013

Please change: 'For example, at the U.S. Naval Academy, when a plebe shouts out "Goodnight, Jane Fonda!", the entire company replies "Goodnight, bitch!"'

To: In a discontinued practice at the U.S. Naval Academy, a plebe shouting "Goodnight, Jane Fonda!" was followed by "Goodnight, bitch." However, this practice has fallen by the wayside and is in fact prohibited by the Plebe Summer Standard Operating Procedures.

Reason: This practice has been disallowed for many years, and is explicitly forbidden in Plebe Summer SOP. See: http://www.usna.edu/Commandant/Instructions/COMDTMIDNINST_3120.1J_PLEBE_SUMMER_STANDARD_OPERATING_PROCEDURES.pdf , page 5-4. (Note: this is a hotlink and may not be current. Search for "naval academy plebe summer standard operating procedures" for an updated link.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.49.144 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2013

Done, with slight modifications to fit better with the rest of the paragraph. BryanG (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

COINTELPRO target

Jane Fonda was an FBI COINTELPRO target; see The COINTELPRO Papers by Ward Churchill, which reproduces evidence obtained through FOIA.[18] Can someone please add the appropriate category? 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Frisian origin

the Fondas are of Frisian orgin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frisians, of Dutc-Frisian origin to be precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.162.42 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request -- contentious material about a living person

This sentence should be removed: "The New York Post reported that during one interview promoting the film, "actress Jane Fonda wears 'Hanoi Jane' T-shirt". It's in the regrets section. It is contentious material involving a living person and as such needs to be removed immediately.

The t-shirt did not say "Hanoi Jane" and it had nothing to do with that issue. The Post claims it is a Hanoi Jane T-shirt because that's how the Post refers to her. Aside from being a false statement, it is used in Wikipedia to imply that she is being arrogant regarding that issue. That's twisting the truth until it is false and untrue. As she contends in her book, My Life So Far, which is in the bibliography, the photo on the shirt is from an altogether different incident in her life.GretDrabba (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the Post is just trying to stir up trouble, and I can't see why it would be necessary/relevant to have that comment in the article anyway. I removed it. --Loeba (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Liberal?

In the opening paragraph, the article states that "she describes herself as a liberal and a feminist." Is there any evidence that Fonda describes herself as a "liberal?" Is there any evidence that Fonda has ever described herself as a liberal? After some searching around, I have found no evidence for this claim and am removing it until a trustworthy source is adduced.

Wiki.correct.1 (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have looked in Fonda's own 2005 autobiographical memoir, which explicitly states on page 144, "I'm a liberal". I've reinstated the sourced information (see here).--→gab 24dot grab← 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Again reinstate sentence "She describes herself as a liberal (''My Life So Far'' by Jane Fonda, Random House, 2005, page 144, "I'm a liberal")" Laughably, an editor had claimed "BLP assertions, none of which are supported in cited sources". The plainly cited source is a memoir written by Jane Fonda herself and she explicitly states "I'm a liberal". See here and here.--→gab 24dot grab← 17:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Jane Fonda is a liberal?? Shocker. Quis separabit? 17:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No, she doesn't "explicitly state" she's a liberal at either of those links. If you'll read more carefully, you'll see she was quoting Vadim. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Foundation

Multiple sources have noted that the Jane Fonda Foundation (founded by Fonda with herself as president, chair, director, and secretary) has made minimal or no charitable outlays in several years. An editor keeps deleting the information, most recently by claiming it's "gossip". I've reinstated the information, removed the one reference which happened to have included the word "gossip" and this time included actual QUOTES from two additional references, one of which explicitly states that the interpreted claims of others are "approximately correct". The fans of Fonda should not delete the information simply because it is less than flattering to Fonda; the matter is hardly a scandal and the section is ready to accept well-sourced facts about Fonda's other "charitable works".--→gab 24dot grab← 16:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The above description of events is incorrect. The "multiple sources" you mention have actually commented on the speculation published by a single source, The Smoking Gun website, and not high quality reliable sources required by WP:BLP. An editor has removed the non-encyclopedic content, noting that it is non-encyclopedic -- that editor did not claim it was "gossip". An editor removed a citation to a non-reliable source (NY Daily News gossip column) noting in the edit summary that it was a gossip column (it even has "gossip" in the URL, which should be a red-flag to any Wikipedia editor thinking of using it in a BLP). You have not, as you claim, removed the gossip reference; you reinstated the gossip column. You did not include a quote which states the "interpreted claims of others" are approximately correct. The cherry-picked quote only confirms TSG's assertion that there is an IRS rule requiring foundations to give 5% of their assets each year; it does not confirm any "interpreted claims" of wrongdoing.
With the above description of events steered back to reality, I must now ask you: what, exactly, are you trying to convey to the reader with the content you keep re-inserting? And how is it in any way encyclopedic information, rather than tabloid, sensationalistic speculation (which is what TSG admittedly specializes in)? You do realize that TSG website post doesn't claim wrongdoing, and only speculates "If applicable" about the 5% rule, right? You do realize the FOX piece quotes a source saying all IRS requirements have been met, right? You do realize the NPQ source calls the speculation by The Smoking Gun a "tempest in a teapot", and explains how "anyone can read, (mis)interpret, and report on any nonprofit" based on public records, right? The detractors of Fonda shouldn't manufacture less than flattering speculation and insert it into Wikipedia Biographies of Living People; the article is ready to accept well-sourced and encyclopedic facts about Fonda's charitable works. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Raised atheist"

Henry Fonda claimed to be agnostic rather than atheist [19] ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of interpretation of the cited source at work here. She says she "grew up" an atheist, which only reflects her belief system, not necessarily her father's (as "was raised" implies). Some rephrasing is in order; I have a couple of thoughts, but no strong preference ("grew up an atheist"; "was an atheist when growing up"; "was an atheist in her younger days"; etc.). Comments/preferences? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Raised indicates her parents brought her up that way. "Atheist in her younger years" wouldn't imply her parents were necessarily so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't realise that could be misleading - I honestly didn't put much thought into it/consider that there could be a difference. I say we just use her exact wording: "Fonda grew up an atheist". --Loeba (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Grew up rather than raised would be better, especially if she said it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Hanoi Jane" Derivation

I've been unable to find out who originally called Jane Fonda "Hanoi Jane". Since this is what she will be remembered for, rather than her acting (one commentator when she received the AFI award remarked that she will always be remembered as a traitor rather than an actress), I think the derivation of the term "Hanoi Jane" is important. Does anybody know who first coined the term? --Was it a newspaper article, a TV comic, a politician? 50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You have that backwards. She was just one of many people who visited Hanoi in an effort to publicize and bring an end to the record-setting bombing of Vietnam, but the press took special notice of her efforts because of what she is actually remembered for: her fame as an actress (and daughter of a famous actor). Your parenthetical note provides an excellent example of why Wikipedia requires that articles be constructed from verifiable facts rather than commentator remarks. As for who coined the "Hanoi Jane" term, I'm not sure, but it might even have been Jane Fonda herself in 1972. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Rumors not described

"Her visits to the POW camp led to persistent and exaggerated rumors which were repeated widely in the press and continued to circulate on the Internet decades later. Fonda has personally denied the rumors. Interviews with two of the alleged victims specifically named in the emails showed these allegations to be false as they had never met Fonda."

What rumours? This needs to be explained in the article. Kombucha (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Someone said above that they don't need to be, "because they're just rumors and not true", but without knowing what these false claims are, there is no way of knowing any "fact" I may hear about her in the future is true or not. You could tell me anything about her, and all I could do is wonder "is that true, or is that one of those 'mysterious rumors' I've heard about?" Information is a good thing; the way to dispel a rumor is to to clarify what the statement is and to state that it's false. Otherwise, you're not doing a shred of good, merely piquing the curiosity of the readers. Why bother mentioning it at all? So we know there are rumors about her? Wow...there are rumors about everyone. Without knowing what those rumors are, there is no point in even mentioning them. AnnaGoFast (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jane Fonda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jane Fonda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane_Fonda/Archive_1&oldid=1190102578"