Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

GA / FA drive

Notes / questions before submitting for GA / FA:

• There are three super-huge tables at the end of the article - do we need all three?
• I'm thinking of trimming half of the second paragraph of the lede and removing the "Midas touch" statement - thoughts?
• Where are citations needed? I'm pretty good at finding them.
• Andy's book?

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the controversy regarding John Hinkley, Jr. be a part of her personal life? Right now the article is separated in decades. I foresee an FA reviewer suggesting it be given thematic headings, such as "Child star", "Film career", "Oscar roles" (subheading), and "Personal life" where Hinkley and her brother's book would be addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm - thematic headings is probably better than time headings. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

mother supported her by being a producer or working for a producer?

I think this statement was copied wrongly from the Internet. If her mother was a producer then she would have her own entry in Wikipedia and an IMDB page. If she worked for a producer which one? --cda (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, Foster is indeed and in fact a homosexual. Openly gay actor Rupert Everett said so as he criticized her for not being out earlier and not helping other LGBT come out as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.137.177 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote about this at afterellen.com. Saying even if she did she could never make everyone happy anyway. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mensa

Is that really a WP:RS? It looks like an Op/Ed piece. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it as a reliable source since it's in an editorial, but I might be able to find another one that's better. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A few months

The statement that Lucius left the family "a few months" before Jodie was born is not actually a quote from the article cited. The article merely implies that the parents had already seperated or divorced. It does not imply when this occurred. Buddy Foster's book states that they divorced *in* 1959 and that Jodie's conception happened much later, during one of their mother's visits to get child-support payments.Wjhonson (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpreted

I put back one part where we had previously said that the press "reacted to it as if she had come out", and now I've stated it that the press "interpreted" it as if she had come out. I didn't really like the "reacted" word as it seemed sort of stand-offish. "Interpreted" seems much more direct and explicit regarding the press' reaction to her comments. Wjhonson (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

foster's sexuality

as the article states, she is intensely private, and has not "come out". until she comes out, it's inappropriate to add her to the categories "Lesbian Actresses" and "LGBT people from the United States". her sexuality is her business, not yours, or ours. show respect for her choice not to share the intimate details of her life with the public. it is for her to state "i am a lesbian" if and when she should choose to do so. until that time - and until a WP:RS publishes that statement - it's inappropraite to push one's assumptions onto the article, and list her as something she has not chosen to identify herself as. there's no value judgement in it on my part, i'd be just as delighted if she were listed in those categories as not - but only on the basis of whether she has chosen to make that identification. on the other hand, if user AMK1211 has a WP:RS to back up the claim that she's come out - please provide it. until then, please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on that, to say that "the press" interpreted her statement as coming out is vague at best. Are there references or examples of "the press" making this assumption? Was it the blogosphere, the tabloids, the NY Post?? Makes a difference. -Jmh123 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Brother Buddy:

As a huge "Mayberry RFD" fan who likes Buddy Foster from my youth, I wish her stayed mute on ultra private matters such as his mom and sister's sexual appetites. I am sure that had he omitted the headline-making pronouncements, sales would have been smaller. Other public figures have spoken about their parents' homosexuality, including Patrick MacNee ("Avengers") who was raised by his mum and her female lover. Money is a primary reason for stars who don't discuss their sexuality. Baryy Manilow has a hugh female base, began his career at a gay bath house, and remain nebulous about his sexuality. MOST FOLKS AGREE, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW. MOST OF US COULD NOT CARE LESS. -SL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.36 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to know who you are, Anastrophe, to determine what is and is not a "reliable source." New York Times? Washington Post? Reuters? They rarely cover the personal lives of celebrities. And if I come in here and cite a thousand sources like The Guardian or AfterEllen or Times Online or Daily Mail you'll just shoot them down saying they're too gossippy or not mainstream enough or have a "gay bias" or something absurd. My next point is, why must she use the words "I am a lesbian" in public for it to "count," why can't she say something like, oh I don't know, "I'm not sure I've managed to deserve the family of friends that surrounds me...my beautiful Cydney who sticks with me through all the rotten and the bliss, here we all are, after so many years, getting older together, staying young together; thank you all for holding me and being in this together." [1] She's a private person and this is her way of saying "I am a lesbian." Also, why doesn't, say, Nicole Kidman need to say "I am a heterosexual" before anyone else is allowed to acknowledge it? Additionally, it's not as if this is a case of alleging someone like Tom Cruise (for example) is gay, when it's pretty obvious he likes women because he lives with a woman and has a kid with her. Oh wait, Jodie lives with a woman (for 14 years) and raises two kids with her... — AMK1211^talk! 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AMK, before you get too upset at one editor, you might want to review the talk page here. We've been over this several times already. Consensus (and WP:BLP) says that she's not a lesbian until she says she is. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get what you're saying and I respect that, but things have changed since consensus was reached on this issue. She has said it.

Also, the Guardian article was used as a reference before I started pissing y'all off yesterday. It says she lives with Bernard, and it says she came out. Why can you use the article to verify one fact but not the other?  — AMK1211^talk! 04:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Can you point out to me where in the Guardian article, or in fact any other article, there's a quote from Foster where she says "I'm a lesbian"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out to me where in the Guardian article there's a quote from her saying she lives with Bernard? There's not one, yet the article is used to verify it. Anyway, I'm done. You win. You have my permission to continue to suppress LGBT visibility on Wikipedia. Congratulations.  — AMK1211^talk! 05:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian article by Hankins is used in two places - to verify that she paid tribute to Bernard and to verify that the press interpreted that as coming out. It isn't used to verify that she lives with Bernard, though that is in the same sentence.

As for suppressing LGBT visibility, maybe you should take a look at my user page? Or my contributions? Or the fact that I and my bot tagged ~5,000 articles with the LGBTProject's banner? I'm one of the last people to suppress LGBT visibility - when it's justified. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AMK1211 wrote: "First of all, I would like to know who you are, Anastrophe, to determine what is and is not a "reliable source." who am i? an anonymous editor, just like you, and i determine what reliable sources are based upon the generously provided guidelines WP makes available. you, me, and the rest of the world can interpret her words howsoever we like; it is for ms. foster to identify herself howsoever she chooses. it is for wikipedia to not speculate or draw conclusions of its own. particularly in WP:BLPs.Anastrophe (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have stated this numerous times, I will say it again. She has not suggested the nature of teh relationship, it might be plutonic, she might consider herself pansexual, she might be bisexual, or she might be asexual and just has an emotional relationship with this woman. We can't call someone a lesbian until they do. LessThanClippers 01:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus (and WP:BLP) says that she's not a lesbian until she says she is." So, Wikipedia is what determines one's sexual orientation? I know this was probably a grammar mistake, and what you probably meant was to say was something like, ""By refering to consensus (and WP:BLP), we should probably leave out a reference to whether she's a lesbian or not unless she says she is," instead of stating that consensus on wikipedia and BLP both decided that she can't be a lesbian unless she has declared it publicly, (and probably referenced in a reliable third-party source). Fredsmith2 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you people get angry, she is a lesbian. Admit it and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.191.192 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought - but when did Rock Hudson ever come out and say he was homosexual? If he hasn't (which he can't now he's dead), why have we marked his article as if he's a gay actor? Much like Hudson, there is much speculation around Foster's sexuality - the question is: what does the evidence in balance say? I don't think it was the press who mentioned "my beautiful Cydney" - the words came from Foster in a very public event, they just reported it. On the balance of evidence at present, I'm with not marking the article as "lesbian" at present, although it would seem worthy of inclusion in the Wki LGBT project. This subject needs further debate if and when other evidence appears either way. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I put this comment here (responding to comments about Ms. Foster's sexual orientation in the relationship section below. The BLP Policy simply states that you need a reputable source to make a potentially contraversial statement about a Person's life. BLP further does suggest that if you avoid categorizing the person as a sexual orientation unless you have an explicit statement from the person as to their sexual identify or it that is a central focus of that person's life. Curiously, as noted above, this criteria is never applied to heterosexuals. Thus, the Critical Test is simply one of having reliable sources, not of having Ms. Foster explicit state "I am Lesbian". This is so that Wikipedia avoids any legal liability.

Per the BLP: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers."

Below are four mainstream News Sources each with millions of subcribers and a fat revenue stream to attack. There is also one Book that state Jodi Foster is a Lesbian. All these publications are listed as reputable sources and are all subject to Libel Laws. Thus, Ms. Foster could take them to court and get a multi-million dollar payday if they are untruthful. If I look further, I can come up with three or four more published articles that also make this statement. We do not have to parse the details of these articles so that the meet some personal criteria, we simply have to accept that published newspapers state she is Lesbian. Just as published sources will state that Hitler was a mass murderer. I have only to cite the sources; I do not have to list the names of all of his victums. Per the BLP, we meet the basic criteria of people able to state that she is a Lesbian.

Daily Mail States Ms. Foster is Lesbian: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-501256/Jodie-Foster-comes-emotional-tribute-girlfriend-14-years.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-502414/Is-man-inspired-Jodie-Foster-come-secret-father-children.html

Times Online States Ms. Foster is a Lesbian: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3040426.ece

Australian Daily Telegraph states that Ms. Foster is a Lesbian http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22885177-5001026,00.html

CNN States that Ms. Foster is a Lesbian CNN.com ran a video entitled, "Jodie Foster thanks gay partner," in which entertainment correspondent Kiki King goes on at length about the Oscar-winning (and 2008 Golden Globe nominee!) actress's recent decision to boldly throw open the closet doors, all gleaned from the three little words, "my beautiful Cydney?" In any case, Kiki King says it's official now, people: Jodie Foster is a lesbian.

Her brother in his Family Biography states that she is a Lesbian or Bi-Sexual: —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 September 2008

Umm... how #%&(*# many sources do we need before this thing is official? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Foster's Relationships

Minor nite, I noted the Thirty Something lover of the woman who is now Ms. Foster's primary partner. This was zapped as not being directly related to Ms. Foster. However, it is typical to not this information in any Wiki biography. For example. Angelia Jolie's bio notes both her Husband Brad Pitt and his prior wife Jennifer Aniston as well as extensive biographical details. This information should be a no-brainer for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 00:42, 2008 September 2

I don't think that info belongs on Jolie's article, either. This is an encyclopedia article about Foster. That info might belong in Cynthia Mort's article, or Cydney Bernard's article, but building some sort of relationship tree is too tabloid for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, please don't add that Daily Mail article again - it's totally tabloid, full of weasel words, and not a reliable source. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As noted (See Angelia Jolie wiki article) it is very common to note the details of people's relationships and how they affect others in Wikipedia articles. This is a standard you are attempting to enforce on this one article it is not a standard used by most biographical Wiki Articles. It is also a small element of contravery in Ms. Foster's life, which should not be avoided, just because it might show her in a bad light.

I Googled the Daily Mail and checked its Wiki Article. There is no evidence that it is any more or less reliable than other newspapers (e.g., NY Post, Washington Posts, etc.). It has a 2.4M person subscription base and is subject to all the english Libel Laws. If it prints something that is factually incorrect, it would be libel under the law. Ms. Foster can get millions of dollars from them if they lie. Given that she has not sued (as others have), I see not reason to exclude the Fact that her lesbian lover of 14 years is also the adoptive parent of her two sons. We could note as reported by the Daily Mail...

The other point is that is will probably have to pay $25M in a property settlement is well sourced from multiple sources. Again, I can explicitly list the sources involved in the text. I do not understand why this and the above reported facts were removed. They all are relatively minor points and Each of the above statements was well referenced. ITBlair (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The exact quotes from the Daily Mail are as follows:

"The couple have two children - both of whom Foster gave birth to, and 54-year-old Bernard adopted.

For several years, the two women have worn matching Tiffany eternity rings on their wedding fingers and Miss Bernard was with the actress throughout both her labours."

There are no Weasel words here and they (the Daily Mail) are completely subject to the the English Libel laws. ITBlair (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No weasel words!? One of the sentences you added says "Her lesbian lover of 14 years Cydney Bernard formally adopted Foster's biological children". That right there is weasely - Is Foster the lesbian? Bernard? As has been discussed many times on this page, Foster has never stated she was a lesbian, so including this sentence violates BLP. Furthermore, that article starts off with "Jodie Foster has reportedly ended her long-time love affair" - reported by who? Her hair dresser? The milk man? That whole (short) article is full of weasel words.

See my comment above on BLP. The BLP policy is to have reputable sources, we do not need Ms. Foster's direct statement on her sexual orientation. The key is to avoid any liability by Wikipedia. If she has a problem there are at least five sources she can go sue. We do not do original research. ITBlair (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actally, read WP:BLP a little further:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question

It doesn't matter how many sources you find. She has never self-identified as anything but straight. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence you added says "It is estimated that this change in partners will cost her $25,000,000 to $50,000,000 of her $100,000,000 property." Who's doing that estimating? And that ref is from Defamer.com - which is, I think, a blog? Let's try to stick to highly accurate information - and well sourced info at that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The source for the blog post is the The National Enquirer, which is not always reliable. On the other hand, the have dug up a lot of truthful information about public figures (Clinton, John Edwards, etc.) This could be formated as the National Enquirer states... Again, assuming there is a reliable source, I do not have to do the estimating. This is up to source. I only have to cite it. Wikipedia does not do Original Research. I will see, if I can locate an non-Enquirer source. ITBlair (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If Ms. Foster's sexual preferences are so vigorously denied as lesbian, why has this article been tagged for LGBTProject? It would seem this is a violation of the spirit of this article's consensus.

Its not tagged anymore -- I removed it. If we're not going to list her in GLBT categories in the article, then we're not going to in the discussion page, either. Its all or nothing -- you're not going to have it both ways. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The main photo of her

Anyway we can get a photo where she dosn't look like a crazed muppet? (198.53.44.115 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

File:Torontofilmfestival2007.jpg

current picture: horrible quality, artefacts, blurry, you name it

previous picture: it's Jodie, but apparently not what her fans want her to look like

The current photo is a catastrophe. The old photo was of better quality, but apparently some of the die-hard Jodie fans didn't like her hairstyle or something. Maybe we should do a straw poll? — ^PDD 14:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The second photo is terrible! Its unflattering, she looks better in the other one. If you don't like it because its "blurry" then upload a recent photo of her where she looks nice.XxTaylor15 (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, you're going to lobby against a photo which replaced the one you uploaded. Your photo is blurry, off-center, and she looks drunk, sick or extremely tired, while "unflattering" would be a personal opinion. She's aging, she isn't going to keep looking like she did in the 1980s. As someone said in the caption above, the second photo is apparently not what her fans want her to look like. Meanwhile the photo is of superior quality and I don't think it is a horrible picture of her at all. We are limited to free-use photos, and Foster doesn't do a lot of public appearances, so until a better photo comes along, the most recent free-use is the one that needs to be used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Children?

There's no mention of her children under personal life. Am I missing something, I thought she had two...OwenSaunders (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I put something in. It's my first ever edit (go me), so let me know if it's not done correctly! Jules1316 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

She also has a female partner whom she's been with for years now, and is frequently seen with in public. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oscar / Academy Award

2 issues.
I added "Oscar for Best Actress" for both films on the Filmography section.
Shouldn't "Academy Award" be used instead of "Oscar"? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell??

Why is there an LGBT Project banner at the top of this page? If Foster is a lesbian (which she is-- she has a partner she is frequently seen with, who she's been with for years now) then the article needs to be included in various LGBT categories. Period. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and so do all of the other editors here. It is the stupid and stubborn administrators that won't let me nor allow it. Ask them! 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless and until she comes out publically as lesbian, we can not say she is. Find a WP:RS where she says it, and we can (and will) add it. Until then, we can not. Aleta ^Sing 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm removing the giant GLBT banner from the top of the discussion page. Its going to be one way or the other, not both. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand the meaning of the GLBT banner. It only means that the article is of interest to the GLBT project. It makes no implication regarding her sexuality. Adding her to a category such as "lesbian actresses" however, explicitly claims that she is a lesbian. An admin has already readded the banner and so long as this topic is genuinely of interest to the project, which I have no reason to doubt, I support it remaining. -Verdatum (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to have the GLBT project banner at the top of the discussion page, then she's going to be added to GLBT categories. That's how its going to be. You're not going to have it both ways -- it sends mixed signals and creates confusion. What part of that don't you understand? Quit playing games. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Resetting Perceptions. The banner on the talk page simply means that the LGBT project has taken an interest in the page. It does not mean that the subject of the article is gay. It can mean they are an "ally" or public supporter; hence, the project has an interest in watching the page.
Whether or not she is described as lesbian in the article depends on her coming out publicly. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

...Right. If you say so. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia policy says so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's this suppose to fool? it's clear what that tag is all about - a bit of honestly wouldn't go a miss. I thought as a community we'd moved beyond outing - clearly I was wrong (which is why I have little to do with my "community"). --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would benefit you to assume good faith and not make unfounded accusations like this. No one is outing anyone and it is extremely offensive for you to accuse anyone of dishonesty. There are a lot of people who are of interest to the LGBT project and I would suggest that to read it as an outing or even of an insinuation would be your point of view, not a fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Foster's main picture

Is there anyway you people can get a better picture of Jodie Foster? I don't mean to sound rude or mean (I love Jodie Foster btw, and she is a great actress!), but I and I don't think she would like the current main picture of her that is on her page. She looks like a muppet, in way, with really big hair. Does anyone agree? Also, can anyone find a picture that is better. I think Jodie Foster would be happier if she ever read her article and saw a better picture of her.

This current photo of Jodie Foster is simply a catastrophe!!!!! Could Somebody please find another picture of Jodie Foster? 01:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There ought to be a better photo. This one isn't terrible, but its certainly peculiar. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also agree; not the best picture of her. We should be able to contact her agent and get a current headshot, right? I will look into wiki-policy and the process... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There is another photo of her that i uploaded months ago. It is from 2007, the same date as the other photo, except she looks much better in the one that I posted. Some user said she looks "drunk or sick" and that the picture is blurry. But it is not blurry at all and she looks fine it the picture. I changed it, but they are probably going to change it back. They are trying to humiliate her by posting terrible pictures of her on this site.XxTaylor15 (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the one on the left which is posted above... They're right, she looks drunk/tired/sick. Please stop posting that image. Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

THE PICTURE IS DISGUSTING! i would post a good one, but its a bitch going through the whole licensing process. can someone PLEASE upload a better picture of her? that's the worst picture i've ever seen of her! its terrible! please change it. XxTaylor15 (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There really is nothing to be gained by posting your opinion of that photo repeatedly. You've made your opinion known. Only free-use images can be used in the infobox. It's time to move on from obsessing over that photo. Meanwhile, you're entirely welcome for the helpful comments I left regarding your edits the other night. It's too bad you haven't followed any of it by putting in properly formatted references. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Jodie Foster in all sorts of roles and in all kinds of conditions. IMHO, she cannot take a bad picture. She's one of the most beautiful women in the world. Any photo of her belongs in the Louvre!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Child Star section

"Foster starred in three films in 1976 — Taxi Driver, Bugsy Malone, and Freaky Friday. She was nominated for the Academy Award For Best Supporting Actress for her performance in the film."

Which film? as in ". . . for her performance in the film "(which film)"?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. It was clear until User:XxTaylor15 edited the page. Perhaps she can sort it out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I finally got the time to check her filmography. Of the three films mentioned the Oscar nom. was for Taxi Driver. So I'll go clear it up. Thank you for responding, Wildhartlivie!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had some [[Wikipedia drama 101|other stuff]] going on the last couple of days and didn't have a chance to really look into it. Sometimes all I seem to find time for is sorting out other messes! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for your recent edit of March 26th. Very progressive!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  13:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, there are some non-progressive people who will change it back, much like they do to Angelina Jolie. Some people just can't let go of "-ess", though my instinct tells me Foster wouldn't be one of them! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I, too think it should be one way or the other with terms like "actor" and "actress". Pick one and stick to it for everybody. Not usually being one to be argumentative, though, I would be just as happy to use non-gender-specific words like "artist", "performer" or "entertainer". I don't really know Jodie personally, so I haven't a clue how she would prefer to be described. But I'd bet my tolling bells there are male film stars out there who wouldn't mind being called "actress"!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL!! I know there are!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My Pal Jodie

Was this a reference to an actual event?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.55.42 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Child actor image

I believe including the promotional image from Taxi Driver, Image:Taxi Driver still 2.jpg is appropriate for this article, as it represents a period in her career significantly different than her current image, and a free image from that period would be difficult or impossible to find. This is my personal interpretation of WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. A previous editor had added it to the career section, which seems appropriate to me. I'll add the appropriate justification to the image and re-add it. If anyone disagrees, please discuss. -Verdatum (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Foster's command of the French language

A few weeks back, I edited out mentions that Jodie Foster dubs herself in the french-language versions of her films, as I had heard her dubbed by another actress in several movies (in "Silence of the Lambs", she was dubbed by someone else). Actually, I could see yesterday "Panic Room" on a French Channel and she definitely dubbed herself, so I guess she has been dubbing herself for a few years now (I should have checked before, as I tend to watch movies with subtitles and not dubbed) : I put back the info. I also added links to videos of her speaking French in an interview, and singing a song in French in the 1970s. Wedineinheck (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Foster's French is simply amazing, I'd even say she puts some French people to shame. She speaks the language with a peculiar, nasal, pronunciation, which often does not sound like a foreign accent at all : she only reverts to actual American accent when using English names or words. Hearing her speak, one may think that she is either Swiss, Belgian, or from the Far East of France. It is only when you hear her speak for about five minutes that you realize that she is Anglo-saxon (but she still sounds like she spent the last 25 years living in France full time). While dubbing herself in French, she manages, through acting skills, to sound even less foreign, with only occasional word pronunciations reminding you that she is not French, and that is only if you pay attention closely. In "A very long engagement", she was supposed to play a foreigner, so she did not restrain her accent; I even think that she made it sound stronger (still not sounding American, as she was playing a Polish woman, if memory helps). Wedineinheck (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a native French speaker and I completely agree: her French is almost perfect. There is indeed a slight accent that is difficult to identify and some hesitations but she speaks French better than many native speakers. I was very impressed. Ronald Reuel (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting. Does anyone have an idea how it compares to her command of German, and where/how she learned both languages? I've never heard her speak anything but English, and I know she does not dub herself in German releases of her movies. 91.33.234.196 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ms Foster began speaking French at the exclusive Private school she attended in the City of Los Angeles. As Ms Foster spends an amount of time in France it is likely she began learning German there, as German and French are more or less the languages understood by all Europeans.Johnwrd (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip to TOC

Added the {{skiptotoctalk}} template to the top of this page for those who'd like to "get right down to it".

 ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

character names mentioned in intro

why does the name "iris" HAVE to be mentioned in the introduction? its not a famous character or a character with their own page such as clarice starling. the name of her character in taxi driver is irrelevant to the itroduction. i am removing it. Excuseme99 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The character "Iris" was the one that launched Jodie Foster's adult film career. Not many child actors have successfully made this transition. Iris is important on several levels.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• PS. You are welcome to join in the improvement of Wikipedia. If you find that some of your edits have been reverted, be sure to check the article Talk page, because there may be facts for you to consider, such as the fact that other editors are involved in improving an article. All editors are entitled to voice their opinions, and we all must abide by Wikipedia policy on good faith resolutions. (Please see shortcut)

siblings belong in early life, not personal life

title speaks for itself. i am moving her siblings to the "early life" sectionExcuseme99 (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The text speaks of several family members, one of which had a "successful career" -- hardly early life suitable. CaptainMorgan (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"first significant role"

it says that "taxi driver" was her first significant role, when in fact that same year she played the lead in "freaky friday" which was a commercial success and earned her a golden globe nomination. FF needs to be mentioned in the intro. i will add it.Excuseme99 (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument makes sense to me. I can't say that I understand Wildhartlivie's problem with it. -Verdatum (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tonight's edits

Excuseme99, you seem to have missed the part about discussion. It is not acceptable for you to have made the same reversions multiple times without discussing it here, then post 3 short comments that essentially repeat your edit summaries and say "I'm changing it", then proceed to revert once more. You're doing nothing different than you did before. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the use of the character name from the first major role for which Foster was regarded as a serious actor, and there is nothing wrong with the phrasing "the preteen prostitute, Iris." More than one editor has changed this back when you have reverted it, so your change does not enjoy consensus. Secondly, I concur, and have said, there is no valid reason to split her sibling discussion between two sections in the article, especially when the more significant sibling content regards adult life - her brother's book, careers, etc. And finally, the lead is quite valid to state that her first signifcant role - the one that shaped and directed the rest of her career - was in Taxi Driver. It wasn't regarded as a role of a child actor. Freaky Friday was another in a series of Disney films - not a major step that opened the door to a serious film career. You're creating rationale after the fact and I think most everyone is growing tired of this. All three of these changes have been reverted by more than one editor, so in each case, whether you make them separately, or all in one edit, is changing against consensus. Please stop doing so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to edits en masse here is a little confusing, but oh well. Her role in Freaky Friday was "signifigant", it was a staring role, that took place the same year as Taxi Driver. While few would argue that Taxi Driver was more signifigant, it doesn't make it the "first signifigant" I see nothing wrong with mentioning it. "preteen prostitute" is an example of WP:OVERLINK, I see nothing wrong with changing it to preteen prostitute, which is more informative. as far as the "a" vs. "the", I'd prefer "the", but hardly think it is worth fighting over. And it is perfectly "acceptable" to make the same edit repeatedly without discussion, it is just generally not the best way to go about things. The only firm stance on the matter is WP:3RR -Verdatum (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Addressing them en masse seems the only way to go about it because Excuseme99 only edits that way, so there is no opportunity afforded to discuss any one point. As you said, repeating the same edit over and over is not the best to work here, and this is a problem with this editor no matter what article it is we're looking at. Forging ahead, repeatedly, when consensus is against a change is another tactic. In all, it's not just the edits, it's the editor's behavior. He/she will not discuss points of disagreement, he/she will only revert with some comment in the edit summary. Then there are the new accounts that pop up sometimes to revert the same thing.

One of my major issues with how some of these things are being edited has to do with the tendency to only emphasize awards or what the editor views as the high points of the career. There is a much broader possibility for covering the progression of a career and factors in it, besides saying "In 1987, she starred in this, and that was followed by that. The next year she was in this and won that award", which is a lot to do with my objections to edits Excuseme99 has made. The point about the article used is one of them. Everyone who has dealt with this editor here has said that using "the" is perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even preferable, but for some reason, he/she just changes it, no matter how many others have said leave it. Then again, as I said, this behavior is occurring across many articles with this editor and concerns POV editing as well. On Talk:Natalie Wood, you'll find a comment left that says "She did not try to board that dingy....why on earth would she? It is ridiculous lies told by Wagner, the murderer himself." It's very hard to have a collaborative atmosphere and productive work with that sort of mindset. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your aggravation, but please try to discuss the edits, and specifically the edits related to this article, and not the editor. The edits that have taken place here do not appear to me to be unreasonable. The editor is presenting their arguments on the talkpage once back and forth reverts begin, and when they are responded to, Excuseme appears to be stopping the reverts. Wikibreaks, and other such actions described at WP:COOL may be appropriate. Both sides seem to have the same end goal of improving this lovely Encyclopedia :) -Verdatum (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Foster says she is not a member of Mensa

She said this when whe was interviewed on Italian television a couple of days ago, promoting her new film. The video is here (at 4:23 circa). The journalist tells her he read she's a member of Mensa and then he explains what the organization is. Foster says it's not true, adding that she tried to take some Mensa online tests but she wasn't able to answer any questions. --Absinthe88 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

excellent find. since someone will probably add it back in if it's simply removed, it's probably best to find some way of citing the above that she says she's not a member. a bit stilted, but it'll prevent repeated return of the bogus claim. Anastrophe (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

there just wasn't a way of adding it without it sounding ridiculous. so i hid the existing cite and gave as reference within it the video, so hopefully if someone tries adding it back they'll see it's not correct. Anastrophe (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So our readers can't tell it's there or not? The situation should be explained a bit, not just in meta.Wjhonson (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

but what do you suggest? it's mere trivia to begin with - whether she is or isn't. "Foster is not a member of mensa" may be true, but it's also probably true that "Foster is not a member of the NRA". "Foster is not a member of the Cleveland Metropolitan Welders Union Local #373". i'd be just as happy to remove even the meta in that case. her denial is not notable, nor was her alleged membership. Anastrophe (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, her denial is not notable but let's keep the source here in the talk page since there'll be somebody who will add "Foster is a member of Mensa" again, given that there are many sources reporting this false fact. They're all written sources which are defenitely less reliable than a video of the person in question denying the fact. Plus it should be considered that the fact that was reported here on wiki may have spread over many articles on the internet. Anyway if somebody starts a sort of an edit war about this I suggest to write something like this in the article: "Often thought to be a member of Mensa, Foster recently denied the rumor - or simply denied it".

If you need a literal translation I can do it, even though with the interpreter who speaks over her I can barely understand some words she says. Another useful piece of information: in the interview she says she understands and speaks Italian but she wasn't feeling like doing the interview in Italian, so she listens directly to the interviewer and then she answers in English (the interpreter translates to the audience), but she doesn't use any kind of earphone to listen to the questions in English. Obviously she says she speaks French too, as correctly stated in the article. --Absinthe88 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: She also says she's an avid Guitar Hero fan :D but it might sound like trivia here. --Absinthe88 (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

right, i think the specifics here in talk will probably serve adequately to document it, and a literal translation may be useful. i suspect that the interviewer probably was looking at wikipedia before doing the interview, and thats how he heard it! she's a fascinating person, incredibly gifted. she may not be a member of mensa but she's obviously more than intelligent enough to be a member if she chose to. thankfully, she chooses not to (mensa always struck me as a fairly silly organization, but i'm digressing). Anastrophe (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I'm a member of Cleveland Metropolitan Welders Union Local #373! What's wrong with that? Just kidding. I have nothing to add to this, except it's pretty funny. (And I don't know why someone would admit to being a member of mensa anyway.) --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So here's exactly what she says:

Int: I've read that you're a member of an association called Mensa...

JF: No, no, people say that but it's not true.

Int: Thank goodness, because I had read that...and I was terrified. I had read there was (literally: there would be) this
organization that gathers people with a very special, a very high IQ, of which Mrs. Foster was a member. So I was terrified
and I was like "how do I meet her"...so it's not true?!

JF: No, it's not true, I know...me too. I would look on the tests online for Mensa and I couldn't answer one question.

If somebody wants to check what she says and/or wants to correct something please do so :D --Absinthe88 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that transcript! A user keeps adding her name to the List of Mensans article. I even made the compromise of keeping her listed as long as her denial was added, but the user just keeps removing her denial. Can anyone help over there? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Foster denies she is a member of Mensa, however there are many reliable sources that say she is. [2] Take for example a murderer says he didn't kill anyone, but he's found guilty of it and executed, which is true? or more importantly, which one can be reliably documented according to wiki policy?Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Both can, and probably should be documented. For example "Although many sources have claimed she is a member of Mensa [1][2][3], Jodie Foster has denied this, saying, (Foster quote from some interview)[4]"

I believe your murderer analogy is misleading, as there is an obvious conflict of interest that motivates a murderer to deny his wrongdoing, while there's no reason for Foster to deny membership in such an organization. The way around these problems is to report the sources, not the facts claimed in the sources. For example, "In May 2030, Murderin' Bob was convicted of first degree murder for the death of M. Body[1]. In the trial, Bob testified that he has 'never even hurt a fly'[2]" as opposed to "In January 2030, Murderin' Bob murdered M. Body" or "Despite his name, Murderin' Bob has never hurt a fly[2]."

I could point you to some policies/guidelines/essays that recommend, effectively, the same course of action; but only if you'd really like them, as I'd have to track them down. -Verdatum (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I debated responding about this because it is covered in a similar way already in the article and the original discussion was a year ago. Regardless, the article covers it. "Some sources claim that Foster is a member of Mensa,[59][60] however Foster herself denied that she is a member in an interview on Italian TV network RAI.[61]" I think that covers it as extensively as it needs to be covered right now, and it reports the sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Two practically identical photos of her on this page

The muppet-like pictures of her from September 2007 appear as the default and under "personal life." Since these are nearly identical photos, I will replace the latter with a photo of her at the Academy Awards in 1990. The page looks better with a diversity of photos.XxTaylor15 (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your pushing of the poor quality photo that you uploaded from Toronto needs to stop. The photo is blurry and out of focus and there is no editor who has spoken up here that is in support of using that photo except for yourself. It does not enhance this article in any way and you were deceptive in omitting that you also added it. The photos from September 2007 are disparate enough to not appear to be duplicates and the 1990 Academy Awards photo is much too small a view of her to add anything of substantiative value to the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which image Taylor is proposing. could someone link to the image in question (you just prefix the word "image" with a colon, and it shows up as a link instead of an image) so newcomers to the article can participate in the discussion? If the image in question is out of focus, I'd rather the article use an unflattering image. Obviously, the ideal solution would be to acquire a more appropriate, quality free image. If anyone likes, I can track down the link giving advise on how to get usable images (getting an image relicensed, taking one yourself, etc.) -Verdatum (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The photo in question is File:Torontofilmfestival2007.jpg. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Foster, Actor??

Like, are we going to change all actresses to actors now? Are we going to change the Oscars for Best Actress to Best Actor? Come on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.2.5 (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do to understand is to read the Actor article. Like, this is the 21st century, and those who cannot change with the times are destined to be left behind. Gender is no longer attached to the term, "actor", any more than it's attached to the terms, "astronaut", or "pilot", "doctor" or "lawyer". Those who remain in the past on this issue truly need to upgrade their neural software!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• PS. Please begin new sections at the bottom of talk pages, so that date continuity exists. Thank you, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thanks (I really am pretty new to Wikipedia). Differences are as follows: there are no English feminine words for "lawyeress", "doctoress" and so on, but there is a widely used English word for actress. So to brand Jodie Foster an actor flies in the face of common usage and smacks of elitism and of feminist "politically correctness". This is especially so in light of the fact that all other actresses continue to be labeled as such, there is an Oscar for best actress, etc. etc. Wikipedia should above all be readable and to brand Jodie Foster an actor just doesn't look or sound good. Maybe 200 years from now the word actress will disappear and then it will be OK to call her an actor. But until then please do not use Wikipedia to impose your gender-neutral views on the world. Are you now going to eliminate the word chanteuse from the French Wikipedia and replace it by chanteur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.244.70 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Guideline in question is Wikipedia:MOS#Gender-neutral_language. This is supplemented with the essay Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language which states: "Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman")." In other words, it is perfectly appropriate to refer to Jodie Foster as an Actress. However, there is nothing wrong with referring to her as a Actor either. In similar situations, such as whether to use American or British spellings of words (e.g. color vs. colour), the convention is to just stick with whatever was chosen first. In other words, don't bother going about WP fixing all occurrences of "actress". But if someone did for a given article, there's really no need to edit war over it, one way or the other. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of "actor" instead of "actress" only in the case of Foster, whose sexuality is the subject of much speculation, is just a gimmick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.244.70 (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You're misinformed. Foster's article is not the only one that uses the term actor in regard to a female who acts. See Angelina Jolie, there's little speculation about her sexuality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and look at what that caused. Over 100 lines of polemics in Angelina Jolie's discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.244.70 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that your snappy comeback? More than one discussion was left in order to show that the same few people stop in once in a while to grouse because they can't wrap their minds around the point that the actual valid term is actor and prefer to stay stuck in antiquated language. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see things differently. The same few people stop once in a while to find and replace all occurrences of "actress" with "actor" because they can't wrap their minds around the way English is actually spoken today, and they think that by eliminating "actress" they'll somehow contribute to more equality in the world, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.244.70 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, whatever. I'm not going to waste time debating when you're only trying to score points of some sort against something that is supported by Wikipedia policy - Wikipedia:MOS#Gender-neutral_language. You've called it a gimmick and now you've claimed it has something vaguely to do some campaign for equality. Basically, if that's why, then fine. But that's not why and it is completely bad faith to make the assumptions you are. Consensus is that to refer to an actor as an actor is supported. Unless you can come up with policy against it, you're only posting to score points. Not interested. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS is a Guideline, it is not policy. I do not see strong consensus one way or the other on this point, neither on this article, nor on WP in general. And the IP's argument seems perfectly valid to me. There is nothing wrong with actor, there is nothing wrong with actress. -Verdatum (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I support your opinion, Verdatum. The "actor" has been there for some time now, and as you point out, there's no reason to alter it. An editor who changes it for the first time probably sees it as an obvious error. An editor who reverts it back from "actress" to "actor" is just holding to the guidelines for maintaining the status quo. Once this is explained, one would think there would be no more need for discussion. So as you point out, and as thoroughly explained in the actor article, it's just not that big a deal.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed this to 'actress'. It's preferable for several reasons - it's by far the most common word used in reliable sources, it is the most widely used term in other wikipedia articles, it is unambiguous, and it is the original wording used in this article. I can see no good reason to use 'actor', either in policy or in common sense. See similar lengthy and lame discussion here. --hippo43 (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The German language issue

I've searched and searched and can find very little about Jodie Foster's fluency or lack thereof in the German language. The source given by the IP, which I had Google translate, is actually the only thing I've seen that even mentions anything about her German ability. IMDb is no help. It even states in the Trivia section that "she was fluent in Italian by the age of 18". So much for IMDb. Anyway, I've added the German back in; however, a better source is probably needed to either replace the MovieReporter source or at least back it up.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: I have just been supplied with a further source for the amended German fluency claim and have added it to the Early life section, ref. [9]. It's pretty clear that, while Foster knows some German, perhaps quite a bit more than myself, for example (I speak a few words - it's a tough 2nd language to learn), she does not profess to be "fluent" in German. She may have been pretty fluent as a child, though, but that's just speculation.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

says who

her first significant role came in 76 in taxi driver i dont think so significant is the wrong anyway word that could mean lots of different things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.48.162 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Islam

Foster's mother, according to her brother, is a Muslim and raised her children as such —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.142.234 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The above statement is an unverified unsigned rumour about a comment from Jodie Fosters unnamed brother,(Lucius "Buddy" Foster, who wrote an unauthorised biography of his sister). If it was in the article, it would qualify for immediate deletion, and even here in discussion is a waste of space in wikipedia.Does anyone care to delete this Islam rumour?Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Effectively, no. It can remain and will ultimately be archived. There is nothing negative or derogatory about it.

Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ms Foster raised as a Muslim? The origin for this ridiculous rumour probably started after a Radio interview where Ms Foster and her Mom were answering questions about current affairs. Jodies Mom expressed shock about hearing of an Israeli attack on a Palestinian Refugee Camp and said she had sent a donation to help the injured. Jodie herself avoided saying anything inflammatory.Johnwrd (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The above Entry saying Mr Lucius Foster Jr being responsible for saying Ms Foster was 'raised as a Muslim' is incorrect. Mr Foster in his Book 'Foster Child' described how Jodie and her Mom were dining with Andy Warhol, during a long interview for Mr Warhol's Magazine 'Interview'. During the meal Jodie's Mom casually stated that she was becoming and Muslim and planned to visit Mecca. Ms Foster's Mom had been sending gifts to help Palestinian Aid Organisations with food for some time, but had never been interested in Islam as a Religion. Jodie herself said she had read Books on the Islamic Religion but was an Agnostic. Source for this Entry is 'Foster Child' by Buddy Foster (page 129). Johnwrd (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointless edit war

User "Wildhartlivie" apparently can't stand non-english sources and keeps removing the sourced info that Ms Foster not only is fluent in French, but also speaks the language without accent, which is an info fans of the actress may find interesting (I'd personally say she speaks with a very little, almost non-existent accent, but that's a minor point). The source I have added comes from a well-known magazine (Elle) and is therefore perfectly acceptable. As for her skills in Italian, I have just added a video from the Italian daily news, at the end of which she can be heard speaking a pretty understandable Italian. As this source is referenced, dated, etc, it is acceptable if one wants to verify that Ms Foster not only understands the language, but is also rather conversational in it, although she prefers to use an interpreter for her interviews (unlike the interviews she gives in French).

I won't argue anymore with this user, as this subject does deserve IMHO to be endlessly argued about. If English-language sources can be found about Ms Foster's language skills, they might replace the current ones. Otherwise, French and Italian-language sources are perfectly acceptable. End of the story as far as I'm concerned. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the video, because Foster's ability is subjectively assessed by the viewer (i.e. not a RS), but the magazine would seem to be a reliable third party source, and I would agree with its inclusion. "though the latter are allowed where appropriate" is what policy says, and with no English language equivalent it can surely stand with an [French] tag on it. SGGH ^ping! 20:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos are generally copyrighted and therefore using improperly posted copyrighted materials are not acceptable. As for the foreign sources, the guideline is very clear: When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate. Jean-Jacques Georges has failed to do so. It isn't a matter of what I "can't stand", it is a matter of presenting valid sources in a manner which permits the reader to verify what is being claimed, and that is the foundation of supplying appropriate translations of foreign sources. And please strike out your personal attack. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't "strike out" anything. Hans Adler has perfectly assessed the situation here. Case closed. Try to learn basic skills in some other languages or learn to use google translate (or try to read properly the guidelines that you quote). BTW, should anyone be interested and understand italian, you can hear here Ms Foster saying : "I started studying Italian when I was 18, I went to college and then I started over two years ago, at a school in Los Angeles. But I can't do interviews in Italian. Too difficult : you have to translate for me. I speak [Italian] with a French accent". I agree not to use this as a source in the article, since the video is undated, but Ms Foster's voice is very recognizable. This makes it clear that 1) she understands italian, as it was already said in the article 2) she is reluctant to do interviews in italian because she thinks she is not good enough in the language 3) regardless of what she says, anyone knowing italian can assess that her italian is actually pretty decent, although not perfect. Hence, she is conversational in Italian, although not as fluent as she is in French.

BTW, I find it sad that we should waste time on so trivial an issue. "Article ownership" is definitely an issue here. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Try not to be so arrogant. There is no requirement that anyone should "try to learn basic skills in some other languages" and to suggest such is such an arrogant thing to say. Article ownership is not an issue here, but the arrogance of a Frenchman certainly is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the content issue but both of you need to be more collegial. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You're not coming to grips with the content issue very effectively while you are hurling things at each other. Up your game. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider this a reaction of frustration over an extremely silly waste of time and energy. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. I agree with everything editor Wildhartlivie has indicated. The first thing I noted was how quickly an implication of vandalism, with this edit, was wielded by editor Jean-Jacques Georges. In the future, if you, Jean-Jacques Georges, truly do not want to waste your time, then do try to make your edits while listening to the wisdom of well-established editors. On a more on-topic note, the Early life section appears to be in better shape. Hopefully, the article discussion page will be used more effectively in the future so as to nip an edit war in the bud.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wisdom" ? Please don't make me laugh. Wildhartlivie has already made a complete fool of himself (herself ?) on the administrator's noticeboard. It is utterly pointless to raise the issue again and come to his (her ?) rescue now that the argument is closed (and it will remain that way, thanks). For the record, I am the kind of person who will gladly traduce a sentence of two, or more, if it happens to be necessary and if I am asked politely. This was not the case, and the other party just kept removing valid sources with no valid reason. Now, end of the story, please. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Yet another arrogant personal attack? And yes, wisdom, which you would do well to master. Your taking this to the admin noticeboard was questionable and perhaps unwise. I still support Wildhartlivie's argument. You, Jean-Jacques Georges, have a lot to learn. Please practice civility and stick to content discussion in the future.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough of this. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We agree! Thank you very much!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom... *sigh* Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the wisdom of civility, and of assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors, and especially of using an article's Talk page to discuss changes you want to make that are in any way disagreeable to other editors. Those of us who are incapable of absorbing these wise behaviors eventually leave Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you will stay. Please remember that, while it's good to be able to edit well, as you can do and have done, it's also important to find sources for your edits that are reliable to Wikipedia standards. And if you think you have done this, but another editor disagrees, then it's important to remain civil and respectful while supporting your argument. And now, I shall yield to you the "last word" if you so desire.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not the one who has been questioning the validity of reliable sources simply for being personally unable to understand them, acting like the article's owner, or persistently misreading the guidelines while claiming to uphold them. Now, let us end this utterly pointless exchange. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mensa memebership

This is the link from Italian RAI: http://www.rai.tv/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem-d31ad91d-ba4c-47de-8004-5bae9fff003d-ctcf.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.241.250 (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mensa membership really does not seem like a big deal in general culture at this time. Unless she is actively involved (which I am guessing she is not), I would propose references to Mensa be removed.

I disagree. It's a respected organization which not everyone is able to join. It's notable even if she doesn't go to meetings. Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationality and religion

What religion was Jodie raised? Is she Irish, Italian, English or German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.154.1 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ms Foster's Father's side of her family is described by her Mom as 'very WASPish' (White Anglo Saxon Protestant). Her Father's family were upper class Americans. One of her ancestors was even said to be a Loyalist to King George. Ms Foster followed in her Fathers footsteps when she attended Yale. Jodie's Mother is of Middle Class Irish/German extraction. Details from 'Foster Child' by Buddy Foster. 92.41.196.64 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Does WASP kind of mean she was partly English descent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.154.1 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think WASP itself implies that, but "loyalist to King George" does. LadyofShalott 04:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So on her father's side, was she of maybe Scottish or Welsh descent besides the Protestant religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.154.1 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

99.9.154.1 You will have to research Ms Fosters Family line to see where her geneology leads, (whether it is respectfull of her privacy to do this is questionable). You need to check the birth records of her father registered in various U.S. State Offices of Births and Deaths. Then follow the history to The National Registory Office in London. And probably from there go to the various records held in Parish Council Offices in English Counties, (which almost certainly will not yet be on line, but will have to be studied on Microfilm). But this will get complicated I assure you. My own father was born on a British Army Camp in Scotland before WW2. No am not Scotish am English. Jodies family records may be scattered anywhere in what was the British Empire. Best of luck in your search.Johnwrd (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Was she raised Protestant or Catholic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.154.1 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Who says she was reared either one? (I don't know the answer, but whatever it is, it does not seem to be a significant part in her life.) LadyofShalott 06:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What websites do I go to for the ancestry research? I will research my own family while I'm at it. Do I need her permission?

User: Jeff Geiger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.154.1 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

LadySharlet. Good point. Ms Foster lived all her childhood in Los Angeles. She attended an exclusive Private School there and appears to have enjoyed the normal 'all American' childhood. As for researching Ms Foster's ancestry, in England anyone can access Birth and Death records of anyone without permission of the relatives, U.S. State and Federal Laws may be different. As said, most local records in England are on Microfilm, not on Line. It also may not be 'polite' if not 'illegal' to do such a search without first obtaining her permission.Johnwrd (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Her Ethnicity is English American her nationality is American. 109.154.17.198 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No original research

There's no point searching for primary sources, because that would be original research. If you don't have a reliable secondary source for a statement about a living person, it has no right to stay in the article and can be deleted on sight. The normal expectation that editors will try to find references for unsourced statements doesn't apply to statements about living people. - Pointillist (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hannibal?

I have not seen "Hannibal" in the filmografy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.70.13 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because Jodie Foster was not in that movie.184.60.27.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

Age during Taxi Driver

Several pages state her age at the time of Taxi Driver at either 12, 13 or 14. Most state 14. I have changed the age on this page below the photo from 14 to 13. A quick calculation using the given dates reveal 13 is the most she could have been: Birthday - 19 Nov 1962 and release date of Taxi Driver - 8 Feb 1976 = 13 years, 2 months, and 19 days. It would be safe to assume she was actually only 12 during most of the shooting, but I have no way of knowing for sure when the photo was taken. It is quite possible this is a promotional photo taken after post-production. If it was taken duing filming she is likely 12 in the photo. Either way I feel an age of 13 in the caption is better than the 14 that was there; as explained above, 13 being the oldest she could have possibly been. Racerx11 (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Like to bring some light to your speculations. She was twelve years when she filmed Taxi Driver and she was still twelve when she did Bugsy Malone. She celebrated her 13th birthday during [or very shortly afer] the filming of The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane, in Montreal Nov. 1975, which is an interesting coincidence because her character in the film turns 13 too.

Image of Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver listed at Files For Deletion

Please contribute to the discussion here. The image is also currently lacking a non-free use rationale for this article. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Adult Career: Possible replacement?

The title Adult Career is highly reminiscent of a pornographic career; could anyone suggest a possible alternative? --Harsh ^{Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk)}(Contribs) 07:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Name?

Look I'm sure that Jodie is her stage name and nickname. I don't think she actually changed it. 101.165.55.71 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

This article concludes: "Foster is an atheist[60] and does not follow any "traditional religion." She has discussed the god of the gaps.[61][62] Foster has "great respect for all religions" and spends "a lot of time studying divine texts, whether it's Eastern religion or Western religion."[34][63] She and her children celebrate both Christmas and Hannukah.[64] Some sources claim that Foster is a member of Mensa,[65][66] but Foster herself denied that she is a member in an interview on Italian TV network RAI.[67]" This is one messed up paragraph. The first sentence is silly - if she's an atheist, it would be redundant to further state she doesn't follow a "traditional religion" since the basic concept of any such religion would be the existence of God. This paragraph would appear to be about her religious beliefs, yet concludes discussing whether she belongs to Mensa? Is Mensa a religion now (sorry but I didn't get the memo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ms Foster told 'Entertainment Weekly' in 2007 that she did not believe in God, but that she and her children love religious services. Ms Foster said she loves all the worlds religions and her children engage in Christian and Jewish Festivals. So unless anyone can find another quote later than Entertainment Weekly in 2007, we can assume Ms Foster is an Atheist who is not at all hostile to Religion.Johnwrd (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just watched an interview Jodi had with Warren Etheredge dated Aug 3, 2011: http://www.thehighbar.tv/2011/08/03/jodie-foster-on-mental-health/ She clearly states she is "agnostic" not "atheist". There is a big difference between those two stances and there is varying types or leanings or shades of gray in being agnostic. The impression I'm left with is that she is a spiritual agnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahleetan (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

~10:45: Warren: "I'm curious because, seemingly on record you're _at least_ an agnostic." Foster: "Yes, yes." This strikes me as less than "clear." Your agenda is showing. 108.236.198.139 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Film and tv career.

Looking over Ms. Foster's film career, I noticed there was no mention of her appearing in several episodes of the 1960's television show,The Courtship of Eddie's Father! I loved that show! She is one of those people who ages beautifully, I don't care what her sexual orientation is, it's nobody's business! If I remember correctly, she also appeared in a TV movie with Leif Garrett but, I don't remember the name of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.78.103 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Entire entry needs a good edit

Overhaul sorely needed on this! There are several needless repetitions as well as a few contradictions - for example, her first credited TV appearance - was it 1968? 1970? Doris Day or? It also needs a source for the Leni Riefenstahl film Foster is said to be developing. The personal life section is a bit scanty as well. The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Past tense?

why does the lede state that ms. foster "was" an actress? when did she announce her retirement? 76.9.81.43 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Leni Riefenstahl?

The article needs some kind of source for the statement that Foster is developing a film on Leni Riefenstahl. The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The content regarding the film could probably be removed as it appears that the plans were first reported in 2000. If a film hasn't materialized in 13 years, I think it's safe to say it probably won't happen. If you want to keep it in, however, I suggest finding a more recent source for it (all I could find was a report from '07). Pinkadelica^♣ 08:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

This entry says, in different spots, that her debut on TV was in the Doris Day Show, Gunsmoke, and Mayberry. Which is it? 50.141.191.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't notice that before, but there is a contradiction as to whether her first appearance was on the Doris Day Show or Mayberry R.F.D. (I don't see where it says Gunsmoke was her "debut", but I guess I could be overlooking it). It appears to be a problem with people misinterpreting IMDb's formatting (I won't bother to explain), but the first appearance (according to IMDb and Allmovie) was Mayberry. I'll go in and fix it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit dispute?

User:Tbhotch has been removing category additions on the topic of Foster's sexuality, because she didn't say that she's a lesbian using the word 'lesbian'.

I admit that she might not have made gay or lesbian films, but I understand she just came out, so the categories should apply nevertheless. -Mardus (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, sexuality is not black or white, be lesbian or straight. She might be lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual, etc., and there is no reference which proves she has said it. See Lindsay Lohan as well. BLP applies. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise the LGBT portal for Sally Ride kencf0618 (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ernestsewell removed the 2013 material with no explanation. What to do about it? -Mardus (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

MS asked him about it. He hasn't explained himself. He should be probably reverted considering Mail Online is not the definition of reliable. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The 2013 and 2007 paras were connected and while I had doubts about Daily Mail, then the source for the 2013 proclamation was The Guardian itself. -Mardus (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I recall, there were paragraphs about Foster's 2007 speech, with, what I believe were sources more reliable than Daily Mail, but these have been removed, so now there's the Daily Mail source for her 2007 speech. -Mardus (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

MS explained it very well in my talk page "[The] Guardian apparently relies on her vague Golden Globe speach, yet they went ahead with stating she is lesbian." (italics mine). She never say that, how the Guardian implied that? Is something we should ask the author. This article can't be compared to Sally Ride, because Ride has died. This is more like what happened with Jim Parsons. Right now, we cannot decide what happened at her speech. She, right now, might be interviewed by multiple sources and this might be resolved later, but now we can't choose arbitrarily one side. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing all mentions of homosexuality. What I figure from the news sources, they are all rumors without any firm statement (either from her or from authoritative sources), basically chit-chat on a topic that some tabloids can't miss. Take this [3] for example. It states firmly "girlfriend" in the title, yet right below adds "reportedly", "it is believed", and so forth. This might be added in proper phrasing, e.g., saying that she acknowledged relations, yet never said what kind of relations. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember raeding about Foster's 2007 speech, where in a small awards ceremony she only thanked "Cydney" and that was that, while LGBT and gossip publications took that as a hint. The current speech is much more. Looks like news publications are not sure either. -Mardus (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a BLPN report while MS removal was done. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Only saw all this chat after adding edit re birth of her children and years of relationship with Cydney Bernard per this [4]. Should I revert ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 05:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That source adds every now and then "has reportedly ended", "it is believed", "Their alleged split" - I would seek something better or not add it at all. Materialscientist (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Google "Jodie Foster Gay" and you will find more than enough credible citations from mainstream media to warrant listing her as gay in this article. --Crunch (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure I did, and found that (i) they are not many and are not major news agencies (it seems that major US sources are silent on this), (ii) those of them that might be treated as reliable do read as speculations drawn from her vague speeches and a few paparazzi photos. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is AP major enough? Sounds like they got the retirement part wrong, are not hesitant about her sexuality: "Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring" http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jD286_yd_urgOG3Kwrv-WYTezGdw?docId=d9a62e816d1c437698e295295080a8fe (talk) The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

<Indent>Sure, AP is major enough, but. This article repeats the pattern: clear title and very vague body (maybe because news titles must be focused). Just read the first sentence, "Jodie Foster came out without really coming out, and suggested she was retiring from acting without exactly saying so". The rest basically repeats her speech and rambling from other sources - poor journalism for AP, which is supposed to set the standards. Materialscientist (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How's this:

• Fox News: "Jodie Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring" http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/01/14/jodie-foster-reveals-gay-suggests-retiring/
• US Weekly: "Jodie Foster Gay: Actress Comes Out at Golden Globes 2013" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/jodie-foster-gay-golden-globes_n_2469439.html
• UPI.com "Actress-director Jodie Foster publicly comes out as gay at Globes" http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2013/01/13/Actress-director-Jodie-Foster-comes-out-as-gay-at-Globes/UPI-22611358133629/
• Reuters: "Jodie Foster comes out as gay at Golden Globes" http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-goldenglobes-fosterbre90d0by-20130114,0,3943596.story
  
• Newark Star-Ledger: "Jodie Foster makes most public coming out at 2013 Golden Globes" http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2013/01/jodie_foster_makes_most_public.html
  

These are a few of the better known mainstream media reports. This clearly fits Wikipedia standards. --Crunch (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the addition as it appears on the page now. I think, because she didn't explicitly say "I am a lesbian" or "I am gay" (which is what some people will want to wait for before any mention of it here), it's best to use her exact quotes rather than synthesis summarizing them. I personally feel describing Cydney as her "ex-partner in love" is clear enough for the reader to interpret for themselves. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement as it currently appears is satisfactory. We can acknowledge that she identifies herself with the LGBT community and categorize her as such; the only thing we can't do, given the somewhat vague nature of her speech last night, is to make an extra assumption about which particular quadrant, "lesbian" or "bisexual", she actually identifies herself with. But there's no contradiction between those two things; there are plenty of notable people out there who are openly LGBT yet retain some ambiguity about which particular letter they fall under, but we still describe and categorize them as being LGBT. (To name just two examples that come to mind, Michael Urie and Libby Davies.) We just don't get more specific than that until better sources can be found, that's all — note, for example, the way she's been categorized at present: instead of Category:Lesbian actors, which would entail an original research assumption as to whether she more properly belonged there or in Category:Bisexual actors, we've applied Category:LBT women and Category:LGBT actors, both categories that are fully supported by her speech as delivered, and are thus wholly valid. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

According to our [[WP:BLP] policy, we cannot categorize her as anything unless and until she herself comes out and states it directly. If she had said, in so many words, "I am a member of the LGBT community", I would not be arguing the point, but she did not, nor did she self-identify as a lesbian or as bisexual. The policy is unambiguous. Please do not re-add the categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Her words were entirely unambiguous. Talking about her female ex-partner, in a speech that specifically invoked her process of "coming out a thousand years ago", cannot possibly be interpreted to mean anything else no matter how far you stretch the boundaries of semantic logic. The categories most certainly are supported by her speech, and WP:BLP does not preclude their use — it precludes filtering her into "lesbian" or "bisexual" subcategories, given that she failed to clarify that question, but she most certainly did not fail to make it unequivocally clear that she is LGBT. She just failed to dwell on the subject excessively, which ain't the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT we do not add categories based on what we think people are, we add them based on what they themselves say they are. So until and unless Foster identifies herself as lesbian or bisexual, the LGBT categories cannot be added. I am removing them as a violation of WP:BLP. Please do not re-add them until the situation changes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The categories in question were based on her own statements. Foster has said, in a statement which left absolutely no room for any rational doubt, that she is a member of the LGBT community — the only thing she failed to do was to specifically clarify whether "lesbian" or "bisexual" would be the more appropriate subgroup for her, but she was quite clear and unmistakable that she falls somewhere in that identity spectrum. And by virtue of using general "LGBT" groupings and avoiding any speculation about which particular letter she identifies with, the categories that were chosen were correctly reflective of the actual situation and were fully in accordance with her own statement. Your move was inappropriate; the categories that were chosen were, and are, wholly valid and correct and in full accordance with WP:BLP as applied. Recatting her in Category:Lesbian actors or Category:Bisexual actors instead of Category:LGBT actors would be a BLP violation; filing her in the label-nonspecific Category:LGBT actors category is not. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

At what point do we pull our dicks out to see whose is the largest? It's her life and if she makes a statement regarding her sexuality, we respect it. Hence she confirms being gay, WE POST IT. End of fucking story. RAP (talk) 7:07 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 3 days because of the edit warring. Work it out here, and/or at the BLP noticeboard, folks. LadyofShalott 05:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Bearcat. Categorizing her as "LGBT" is unquestionably within reason; this is the second time she has publicly "came out", and both times (in 2007 and 2013) came years after she had denied her sexuality (in 1997). It is completely understandable that this is a sensitive subject (as is evidenced by the fact that Jodie Foster was so hesitant to reveal this about herself). The fact is, however, she has very publicly discussed her sexuality twice now, and there exist numerous reliable sources who have reported that she "came out" (sources both in 2007 and in 2013). The continued attempt to keep this information out of this article would make sense (and I would agree with it) if she had not so publicly discussed it herself; that means it is not something which can be argued as being somehow inconsequential to her public life, so there is no reasonable argument for "privacy". In my opinion, there exists no valid reason to not have this article fully recognize that Jodie Foster has firmly acknowledged her sexuality.  Chickenmonkey  08:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no attempt whatsoever to keep information out of the article - it would be extremely odd if the article did not discuss press speculation about her sexuality and even her past statements. The issue with the categories is not whether people think Foster is a lesbian, it is what label Foster herself chooses to adopt. She has not made any clear statement and the categories cannot be added until she does. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, adding those LGBT categories is not saying she's a lesbian. It is an acronym for four different terms for a reason. No one is adding the category "Lesbian actors" (if there is one). Because she herself has come out as nonheterosexual, which no is arguing she hasn't, adding the very inclusive and nonspecific "LGBT" category should be a nonissue. Considering the article itself states (quoting Foster at first): "...I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age, those very quaint days when a fragile young girl would open up to trusted friends and family and co-workers, and then gradually and proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met." She thanked her former partner of 20 years, production manager Cydney Bernard, calling her "my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love...," it's odd not to have this article in an inclusive nonheterosexual category. (Not to mention the unambiguous sentence "Foster broke up with her long-time girlfriend, Cydney Bernard, in 2008.") Those statements are non-controversial to you (i.e., you agree they're well sourced enough to be in the article), but adding a category that indicates she's not heterosexual, based on information in the article from her own words, is? I don't get it. I guess we'll see what happens in Request for Comment. Moncrief (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the "Foster broke up with her girlfriend" bit numerous times, but an editor determined to find a way to put it into the article kept insisting on adding it, so I finally got tired and gave up hoping someone else would step up, which is when the article was placed on "lock down" over the editing dispute regarding cats. The subject of reports of her sexuality was better written (and better sourced) previously, but was "scrubbed" from the page a few weeks ago prior to her Golden Globes speech. When the lock expires I plan on restoring some of the previous wording (and sources) that was in the article (as much of it clearly met the WP:NPOV criteria better), but for now the page is essentially frozen in the middle of several editing disputes unless someone feels an urgent need to bug an admin about it (which I don't). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I also point out that ignoring Foster's statements and insisting that she use some magic words, is, in effect, labelling her straight by default. That's pretty disrespectful.--Ibis3 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Look guys, we're all adults here and we all know what she was trying to say, but the bottom line is she did not come right out and just say it. Yes, most reasonable people have interpreted Foster's convoluted little "speech" as acknowledging that she is not heterosexual (as demonstrated in the numerous mainstream media sources cited here proclaiming that she announced that she is "gay"), but until she specifically states what she considers herself to be, it's open for interpretation. She could categorize herself as lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, or any number of other ways (hell, some people "experiment" all though college and later insist that they still consider themselves to be heterosexual). Yes, she referred to "coming out", but the term has almost become a pop-culture colloquialism (e.g., I've heard people "come out" as a "closet" fan of "Honey-Boo-Boo"). It's sad that in 2013 we live in a world where someone's sexuality is still such a touchy subject, but that's the way it is. Foster could have put an end to this Sunday night and just stated unequivocally whatever it was she was trying to say, but her cryptic "coded" language/inferences aren't going to be enough (maybe enough for the mainstream press to jump to their own conclusions, but it will never be enough for editors to reach consensus here). The lock is going to expire in two days and since it's clear we're never going to reach a consensus about this, I think it's best to agree to just leave any LGBT cats out for now. Foster wants to have it both ways, claiming that she's "come out" without ever actually "coming out". You can't really get frustrated with the editors here for the ambiguity that Foster herself continues to perpetuate with her convoluted little non-declaration declarations. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ibis3, the lack of LGBT categories indicates that the person has not identified themselves as LGBT, nothing more. I would object just as strongly to labelling someone heterosexual who had not chosen to adopt that label for themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one can be a woman who has had a self-described romantic relationship with another woman for 20 years and not be either L or B in GLBT. Do you? Where in BLP does it say someone has to use programmatic coming-out language in order to be identified as GLBT? Moncrief (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If she has referred to herself as LGBT, I would be fine with those categories. Has she? If not, we wait until she chooses to apply a label to herself. Anything else violates the policy. Foster's words are included in the article and readers can draw their own conclusions without the categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You are inventing a litmus test for sexual orientation, that someone must declare it in a programmatic way, in words that are suitable for you, that does not exist in BLP. By no means, and I hope this is obvious, do I think Wikipedia should ever in any way "out" anyone -- people who go to even the most minimal effort to hide or never discuss their sexual orientation in the public sphere must always be respected Wiki-wise -- but Foster has come out, not in the programmatic three-word-declaration way, but she didn't do it that way precisely to make a point that it needn't be done that way. In her own words, she tells us that she came out to everyone who matters to her personally long ago. I'm not going to expend much more mental energy on this, because at one level it's absurd, as categories aren't exactly what people gravitate to when they read an article, but I hope you reconsider your narrow views about there being only one way to come out of the closet, and I hope you reconsider your application of a non-stated-in-BLP litmus test to sexual orientation and sexual orientation only. Moncrief (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I really wish I hadn't just now noticed your edit summary, which says "That dog won't hunt." That's dismissive and uncivil and assumes bad faith. It's entirely possible to perceive this topic from a number of angles. Your insistence that one must say the specific words "I am [X]" (and no variation thereof, certainly not talking about having come out a "thousand years ago" or discussing one's multidecade romantic relationship with a woman) in order for one to be X is in fact a minority position here. Moncrief (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming out is (as the article makes clear) all about the LGBT. But for some people "I am a confirmed muff diver" wouldn't be sufficient. C'est la vie (at least in les Etats Unis). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moncrief, you seem to be confusing real life with Wikipedia. We are talking about Wikipedia categories, not my belief about Foster's sexuality or anyone's choice to come out. The policy says (in part) "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". It does not matter if I am in the minority - consensus cannot override policy. I'm not sure what you think "that dog won't hunt" means, but it is not uncivil or assuming bad faith. That said, unless you have a new argument, perhaps we can stop going in circles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, Wikipedia isn't a multilevel role playing game. It is meant to document real life. I have no interest in what you personally think of Foster's sexual orientation. She has come out. She has identified her orientation as being LGBT. Your perception seems to be that she hasn't because she hasn't done it in a way that I guess is most familiar to you. I am not going in circles. You seem to restate the same position without appreciating that others are intelligent enough to understand Wikipedia's policies without having them repeated. Clearly, for whatever reason, you think Foster has not sufficiently self-identified as nonheterosexual. I and others get that and disagree. Rather than articulating why you believe she hasn't, you fall back on a policy we already understand and rely on cliches like "that dog won't hunt" and "going in circles." Not particularly convincing. Moncrief (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't consensus change policy? NYSMy talk page 00:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, the disagreement is not whether or not the subject of an article has to publicly self-identify; the disagreement is about whether or not the subject of this article has already publicly self-identified. Some people believe she has, and some people believe she has not.  Chickenmonkey  01:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the problem. Self-identified as what? If she really had "come out" then there wouldn't be any room for disagreement as to whether she had come out or not. I personally feel she's made it reasonably clear that she's not traditionally heterosexual, but she hasn't stated exactly what she is. Lesbian? Bisexual? Pansexual? Heterosexual who was formerly involved in a homosexual relationship? Asexual who was formerly involved in a homosexual relationship? Foster consistently insists upon perpetuating this ambiguity herself. I'm know she thought she was being "poetic" with her rambling 6½ minute "song", but the whole thing reads to me as being approximately too cute by half. As far as I'm concerned, the Wikipedia LGBT categories are a badge of honor she hasn't earned. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who protected the article, I have no intention of entering this argument, but "badge of honor"??? LadyofShalott 02:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely you didn't think this was just about categories? These kinds of vigorous debates about which labels to attach to BLP subjects almost always have political underpinnings. That's why I defend the hard line of the policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

LadyofShallott - I was referring to the people who actually do step up and say what they mean without making long confusing speeches and using "code" words. Since Sunday there have been implications that anyone who doesn't feel comfortable drawing our own conclusions that Foster is "gay" or "lesbian", etc, is somehow harboring anti-gay sentiment, when the problem is with Foster's own convoluted rationalizations. I respect anyone's right to not want to disclose details of their personal life, but as I've previously stated, Foster appears to want to have it both ways, which doesn't work for the purposes Wikipedia. A person has either "come out" or they haven't. When someone's alleged "coming out" creates more questions than answers (we can cite just as many reliable news sources that expressed confusion with regards to her speech as we can those that interpreted it as a "coming out"), then we can't blame other editors for not being comfortable placing her in a category that she herself appears to be uncomfortable talking about. If that speech was the best she could do, then she probably would have been better off not saying anything at all. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Delicious - Anyone who wants can glance at the edit history and see that I had no problem keeping the LGBT categories when the only disagreement appeared to be between LGBT or "lesbian". I personally wasn't looking to make a big issue of it as long as everyone else was in agreement. However, after you expressed problems with adding the categories (and began edit warring) I basically came in and said that as long as there was someone who objected it would be best to leave the cats out altogether. It's all right there in the edit history, so don't try and accuse me of having "political underpinnings" when I've been the one trying to diffuse the situation. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Crakkerjakk, it was a general observation not directed at you specifically or limited to sexuality categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see how "badge of honor" would appear to be a poor choice of words to someone just jumping into the thread. I was just trying to address the presumed "anti-gay" motives for keeping the cats out, but it probably made more sense in my own mind. I'm honestly a lot less concerned with categories than I am with the text passage(s) addressing the issue within the article proper. I'm going to try and combine the best of what was there a few weeks ago (and its sources) with the Golden Globes news to get it closer to a WP:NPOV. I just hope I get a chance to shoe-horn the edit in before the page goes into "lock down" again. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nowyouseeme, consensus to change a policy can change a policy, consensus here will not change the policy. I don't think there is any chance of getting consensus to make such a change to the policy on biographies of living people, but I could be wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I found a way to jump in! Nice little device to get out of "infinite indent".

My reason for coming (back) to JFoster was the "father" article in Ext. links led me to another article of interest. "Jodie Foster Blasts Kristen Stewart–Robert Pattinson Break-Up Spectacle" Daily Beast, Aug 15, 2012, a first-person JF reflection on challenges of growing up as a child star and a reach-out to Stewart, JF's then-11-y'r-old co-star in Panic Room. I was going to be lazy and just add it, too, to the Ext. links. I don't know if you all are doing interim editing but I'd encourage adding this one one way or another. While I'm here: I don't know how ABC is on maintaining transcript archives but the LATimes also has the Globes one.

Sorry, nothing big on the main topic: I think the way it is in the article now pretty well captures as far as JF went at the Globes. As to categories, I'd say "Don't push it" and allow the principal -- JF -- to set the pace, FWIW. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: She shouldn't be categorized as gay, lesbian or bisexual until she is more explicit. Everyone knows—for some well over a decade—what it is that she said she was at the Golden Globes; what is worth fleshing out for our purpose in this regard is how obtuse she has been about her sexuality and the role it has played in the fiber of her life. The New York Times focused its story about her speech in that light: "But even her speech on Sunday was too elliptical for many gay activists and bloggers...[who] were irked that Ms. Foster didn’t more clearly indicate that she was gay.... Ms. Foster has not discussed her love life in interviews or made a political point of being a lesbian. At the Golden Globes, of all places, she changed her mind. Several times." --David Shankbone 06:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources: WP:PRIMARY, by my reading, says we shouldn't be doing our own analysis on her speech. Wikipedia reports what is said by reliable secondary sources and relies upon them for analysis. It seems to me that trying to say she hasn't self-identified or similar is applying our own personal analysis to the primary source - the speech. To me, the headlines and the secondary analysis are as clear as day. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life section

Wikipedia has a policy protecting living persons from gossip. The idea that Ms. Foster's sexual orientation has been "subject to speculation" indicates that the claim itself should be removed. Without a clear statement from Ms. Foster the claim should, by Wikipedia's standards on living persons, be removed.Catherinejarvis (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have trimmed the personal life section in accordance with WP:BLP. It retains sources and undisputed factual material. Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The acceptance speech receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at this year's Golden Globes. -Mardus (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I just watched her speech, and I barely understood much of it, so I came here to read more, and I found very little. Is so little known of her personal life? Who is the father of her children? -ErinHowarth (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter who the father is, until a reputable source reports about it, or she actually says anything about it also to a reputable source. -Mardus (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Catherine, you're one of the same people who says Georgia O'Keefe was straight. She's not. Neither is Jodie Foster -- she just came out 5 minutes ago on the Golden Globes. GTFO. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've watched her speech and, like most, would general accept that she's gay, and implied it during the speech. I vote to keep the statement. I've followed it up with link to YouTube. Somejeff (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

One video link has been removed, allegedly on copyright grounds. If a channel owner is a reputable news source (think CNN or something), and if it publishes an excerpt of her speech, then it would be good. -Mardus (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/2013-golden-globes/jodie-foster-golden-globes-speech-034436589.html

How's that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.120.116 (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Associated Press was not afraid to use this headline: "Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring" http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jD286_yd_urgOG3Kwrv-WYTezGdw?docId=d9a62e816d1c437698e295295080a8fe

 The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggested a clear statement was necessary and Ms. Foster has made a public statement which seems sufficient. However, it remains true that people should not be labeled on this site without evidence.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What evidence do you need? A sex tape? Jodie Foster IS a lesbian. Fact. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming out on the Golden Globes

Are we going to pretend this didn't happen? The same assholes on here who refuse to let any mention of Georgia O'Keefe being being GLBT added to her article are the same ones keeping it out of Jodie Foster's. Time to change that. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, her exact quote was: "I'm single". Officially, she heavily implied that she's gay. Somejeff (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimme a fucking break, dipshit. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, her exact quote was: "I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago." And she described Cydney Bernard as "one of the deepest loves of my life" and "my ex-partner in love." 50.124.130.158 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Meaning she is OUT. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There is now a transcript :-) -Mardus (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It was obvious that she acknowledged that she is gay in this speech by saying she came out a long time ago and by acknowledging her ex-partner. Single and gay are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason not to mention that she is openly gay. --Crunch (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that revealing one past romantic relationship with a woman makes it "obvious" that she is "gay", regardless of how many newspapers make that assumption. She could consider herself bisexual for all we know. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See the AP article: "Foster reveals she's gay..." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jD286_yd_urgOG3Kwrv-WYTezGdw?docId=d9a62e816d1c437698e295295080a8fe The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't it been openly known for ages that Foster is a lesbian? It's nearly as well-known as Boy George being LGBT. I think it was disucssed already at he time of The Silence of the Lambs, and I know I've seen it referred to as a well-known fact by many a reputable (non-U.S.) news outlet over the past dozen years at least. Is the sensation that she named her girl-friend (who had been the subject of speculation herself before) or just that she did it in this kind of gala context? Gosh, you Americans. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There are people from all over the world (not just Americans) who edit Wikipedia. However, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to repeat "speculation". If you have "reputable sources" from the past "dozen years" then by all means, feel free to cite them here and I (or another editor) will be happy to add them to the page. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsense and seems like a fan based Wikipedia. The lesbian lover she talked about at the Globes, she broke up with in 2008. She named her Cydney Bernard and made it clear. Everyone knows that. She painted it black and white and probably fell over when reading Wikipedia with the "suggestion" that she suggested she might be gay. Her entire speech was about her being gay since she was young, telling all her friends she was gay and anyone close to her. Then she even apologized to her mother for coming out in public in such a big way on the Golden Globes since it is clear her and her mother thought it would be best not to make a public spectacle about it. Her mother now has dementia is why she is saying she'd like to get through her blue eyes and into her head so she would understand why she went public now. She even talked about how her and Cydney Bernard raised her two boys. I'm not going to make any changes but I don't know why you that have been editing her bio for so long are beating around the bush... she certainly isn't.72.198.112.191 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hesitancy to unequivocally state that Foster is "gay" on this page should not be interpreted as anti-gay sentiment. Foster could have easily avoided all of this ambiguity herself by addressing the issue head on, but she instead chose to make her own statement in her own way. This does not give us license to conclude "A+B=C". Now, since we have numerous (what most would consider) "reliable sources" which have concluded that this was her round-about way of "coming out" as gay/lesbian, I wouldn't necessarily object to quoting Foster's EXACT words and then possibly adding something like, "Many news sources interpreted these comments as Foster coming out as gay." But, unless/until she decides to clarify her cryptic statements on the matter, we cannot engage in synthesis by stating simply "Foster is gay", since, as far as I know, she could be bisexual. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We should certainly avoid making assumptions about whether she identifies as "lesbian" or "bisexual" in the absence of her own words on that question, but the speech left absolutely no room for any rational doubt that she identifies herself with some branch of the LGBT community. We don't need to completely bury the whole thing just because she wasn't explicit enough about whether she identifies as L or B; the current situation, which acknowledges the statement but avoids pinning down whether she specifically identifies as L or B, is perfectly satisfactory. We should indeed avoid the specific word "lesbian", unless and until she clarifies that better than she did last night — but her words were more than clear enough about being somewhere in the LGBT spectrum that we do not need to pretend the whole thing just didn't happen at all. And those two things are not in contradiction with each other. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are numerous threads about this subject on this page today, so it's hard to keep track, but as I previously stated in one of them, I don't have any problem with the quote on the page as it is now. I simply don't see any room to draw any conclusions other than citing what she, herself, has said. It would have been nice if she had been more clear, but for now all we have is her statement and we cannot draw any inferences beyond it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about classifying her as LGBT or not, but there are facts. She had a relationship with Cydney Bernard. It started in 1993 and ended in 2008. There are multiple sources. Cydney adopted the their two children. They share custody. Please stop reverting these well-sourced facts. If anything the GG speech confirmed the relationship. Fight all you want about labels and cat's, but don't revert factual information that's been reported in many established sources. --DHeyward (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I found the problem with the Huffington Post link. It was broken and kept returning a 404 message. Daily Mail and AcesShowbiz didn't seem enough on their own, but I fixed Huffington Post link so I'm leaving the edit for now. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I have the other page being whitelisted for reference if necessary. The other information about her children being adopted by her former partner and joint custody has debateable encyclopedic value unless/until they become notable themselves but references to that arrangement supports a co-parenting arrangement as well as the previous relationship as parents. Just including the relationship covers the topic. --DHeyward (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)