Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

dear jolie i wanna be ur frend

80.87.92.131 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not connected to Angelina Jolie, can't help you I'm afraid--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

reference does not pertain to statement

She denied this on several occasions, but later admitted that they "fell in love" on the set.[104] This reference has no such statement.

add to under in the media second to last sentence

Jolie was named the most powerful actress in 2012 Forbes top Celebrity 100.

Angelina Jolie and Timothy Hutton

He is not mentioned here on Angelina's wikipedia page. They had a relationship which is said to have been serious (her "H" tattoo is said to stand for his last name, Hutton). -Symbols100 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hutton is not mentioned because Jolie has never publicly discussed their supposed relationship. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Maleficent

Hi! I noticed Maleficent wasn't included in the filmography. Here is the Wikipedia Article with the references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maleficent#Live-action_film Have a great day! FairHelp (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

---

EDIT---------------

I just realised that you have mentioned it! Sorry!

Angelina Jolie roles

After all it 's an actress roles that make them famous. What do you all think about putting a few screenshots of the Ms Jolie roles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie got her spider

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Angelina Jolie got her spider. Biologist Jason Bond named a new species of spider which was discovered in Joshua Tree National Park by Angelina. The Latin name of the spider is Aptostichus angelinajoliae.78.2.97.125 (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Angelina Effect

In Poland, interest in mammography grew in 2 days (15th and 16th May) by 53% and so the overall interest in breast cancer!(http://lublin.gazeta.pl/lublin/1,35640,13926606.html#LokKrajTxt) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.242.0 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, her impact is mentioned in the section immediately above this one. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

With regard to her influence on the topic of double mastectomy, and her influence in general, Time included her on their cover for their piece on the matter that they call The Angelina Effect; this information has been included in the article.[1][2] Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to include the story about Poland in the article as an example of the Angelina effect :)--81.100.242.0 (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add most of the breast cancer text, and there's no need to single out Poland as having been affected by her impact. The section makes it clear that she has impacted people about this on a massive and worldwide scale. Flyer22 (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that, because of this edit, the section no longer states "massive and worldwide scale," and now instead states "large scale." I prefer "massive and worldwide scale" because plenty of celebrities have the ability to influence people on a large scale, but not as many on the massive and worldwide scale that Angelina can (which is what the Time article is talking about). But, since the section now mentions a foreign response, it's probably clear that she as affected (though not the same thing as influenced) people worldwide with this news of her double mastectomy. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mastectomy, again

I accidentally hit "Save" before writing an edit summary, so I wanted to explain my edit here. I separated the content into two paragraphs, one detailing her medical issues, and the second going into her Times essay and the public reaction. To have the two intertwined seemed a little messy to me. Also, I replaced the mentions of Shakira and Zoe Saldana with a mention of William Hague, as he has recently worked with Jolie, while Shakira and Saldana seemed kind of randomly chosen.

I'm being bold here, so if any objections are voiced we can work together. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Prayer for the wild at heart. And since you are currently the primary editor of this article, keeping it in good condition, I was wondering where you were.

As you may have seen if checking the latest several edits in the edit history at the time you made your recent edits: In this edit summary, I suggested, "This section would benefit from responses from the public about the impact Jolie's surgery has had already, and the message it sends to women who fear that a mastectomy reduces their femininity," and also stated, "I'll likely expand it also." Not too long afterward, the section was expanded by a different editor with the bit about public response. I thanked the editor in this edit summary. I still feel that there should be some mention of the impact Jolie's surgery has already had on women, not just the praise she has received from people, but things about how she has increased acceptance of the surgery and has shown women that not getting the surgery due to fear that it will reduce their femininity is not worth the risk of breast cancer. She has "opened the door" for society to remove the social stigma from this surgery, has, on a wide-range scale, gotten people to talk about this topic. The articles "Angelina Jolie: Breasts Don't Define Femininity" and "Angelina Jolie And The Rise Of Preventive Mastectomies," for example, address these aspects (though with regard to the article about femininity, I believe it's clear that Jolie is saying that it doesn't take breasts for a woman to be a woman, not that breasts aren't a part of femininity at all). Doctors and experts have also been weighing in on the matter; see "Doctors Say Not All Women with Jolie Condition Need Preventive Mastectomies and "Actress's Move Shines Light on Preventive Mastectomy. Experts Say Jolie Raises Awareness of Genetic Cancer Risk, but Caution Not All Women Need Testing." So there's also been a bit of criticism and skepticism about the surgery from non-media figures. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

NaturalNews has published three articles, www.naturalnews.com/040349_Angelina_Jolie_breast_cancer_surgery.html How Angelina Jolie was duped by cancer doctors into self mutilation for breast cancer she never had], www.naturalnews.com/040334_Angelina_Jolie_double_mastectomy_breast_cancer_prevention.html Angelina Jolie inspires women to maim themselves by celebrating medically perverted double mastectomies] and www.naturalnews.com/040365_Angelina_Jolie_gene_patents_Supreme_Court_decision.html EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion)]. If anything, I think she is campaigning against the patent, so I have added something to that effect. Helen (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Noting here that Mike Schwartz is the one who added criticism using the "EXPOSED" source HelenOnline provided above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And HelenOnline reverted; it's best to work out that matter in this section, if Mike Schwartz or anyone else objects to HelenOnline's revert, instead of creating a new section to discuss it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I reverted it as I don't consider NN to be a RS and I believe it is giving undue weight to quote one conspiracy theorist's opinion in the article. Helen (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Not an appropriate source at all. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Hess at Slate wrote an article about it in which she also picked up on the advocacy aspect: "I felt so honored to read Jolie’s detailed first-person account of her experience, as well as her advocacy for all the women around the world to gain access to the too-expensive tests and procedures that have empowered her to fight for her own life." Helen (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, I've expanded the reaction from the medical community to include the "criticism" per Time: "The response from the medical community was twofold: her decision was met with praise from health campaigners, who welcomed her raising awareness of the options available to those at risk,[138] while other experts feared a widespread overestimation of BRCA mutation occurrence,[136] as less than 1% of all women carry this genetic condition,[139] and a misunderstanding of the risks involved for those who do test positive.[136]"

I was going to add something about her femininity ("A modern sex symbol,[44] she also stated that her mastectomy had not affected her sense of womanhood, writing, "I feel empowered that I made a strong choice that in no way diminishes my femininity."[37]"), but I haven't yet found a quote I like about its supposed cultural significance, so I'll wait and see what comes up in the future. Maybe something can be added to the paragraph on her appearance in the "In the media" section; I'm pretty sure People will name her Most Beautiful again over this anyway, like they did Christina Applegate. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If possible I would like something included about the expert consensus that what she did was the right choice for her. The Time article which we have already linked states: "Jolie, by nearly universal agreement, made the right choice for her." From the full Time article, which requires a subscription: "Jolie, according to most experts who have weighed in publicly, made a smart choice for her case. 'It's one of the truly unique situations where most medical professionals would say if a woman chose to have both breasts removed, it's a pretty reasonable thing to do,' says Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Exceedingly reasonable, judging by the numbers. Jolie's doctor estimates that her cancer risk fell from its 87% high to just 5%." Helen (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. that should probably go in the first paragraph. Helen (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that's an important distinction to make, the response to what Jolie's decision means for her personally and what it may mean for the public. I'll add it, but probably to the third paragraph; I prefer to keep the first paragraph solely about her personal medical information. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to: "Most medical experts who weighed in publicly agreed that Jolie made the right choice for herself,[136] but differed in their response to its expected influence on the public. Her decision was met with praise [...]". Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Helen (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Prayer for the wild at heart. I don't know what type of quote you are looking for to show that she, like I stated above, has "increased acceptance of the surgery and has shown women that not getting the surgery due to fear that it will reduce their femininity is not worth the risk of breast cancer," but there are a variety of sources out there along those lines (such as the Time article), whether specifically mentioning femininity or not, and waiting to add such material is no problem. I'd rather that information be in the Personal life section with all the other breast cancer information than in the Media section, though.

Also see what I stated in the Angelina Effect section below about using "massive and worldwide scale" instead of "large scale." Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI this is the final paragraph of the subscriber Time article: "Jolie's role in all of this adds one more important dimension. She has long been a symbol of the feminine ideal--which in its shorthand sense has meant feminine beauty. Her body has been a key dimension of her fame; now it may be an even bigger dimension of her influence. The loveliest and most resonant passages in her op-ed piece come during her brief description of her breast reconstruction: "The results can be beautiful," she reassured, adding that her children can see the small scars but that other than that, "everything else is just Mommy." With that, the most stunning woman in the world redefined beauty. That made us all a little smarter." Helen (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for providing that quote here, HelenOnline. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's excellent material for the article, thanks for posting. "Redefined beauty" is the type of phrase I was looking for, especially from a major source like Time. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure. It comes from a slightly different source to the one already cited (ref name=Kluger) and this source should also be cited for some of the recent edits. Helen (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. We claim that the Time cover story "noted her ability to influence people on a large scale," but does it actually do that or is that just the online teaser article? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The main article talks about her ("the most beautiful woman in the world" to many) putting the issue in the spotlight and the last paragraph I posted above talks about her influence, but I think there is more emphasis on her influence in the original source cited. The main article really is more about the disease, risks etc than her. Helen (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a need to have what is essentially a duplicate of the Time source that was already in the article? I understand that people only get the teaser with that first source unless they are a subscriber to the magazine, but it's still the same source. And why cite it as a journal? Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The original Time source by Kluger is effectively an article about the main article, but includes more free content than the main article which makes it useful here. The original source also focuses more on her influence, with content that is not in the main article. Although there is overlap each source has unique content. The main article was written by two authors, and if we are going to use content from it such as the "redefined beauty" aspect or the close paraphrasing about experts weighing in not in the free article then I think we should also be citing that. I understand the journal citation template is also used for magazines (which Time is) and newsletters. Helen (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Earlier, I saw that you replied. But I was sleepy at that time and only waking up to sporadically revert vandalism. I just read your reply minutes ago, and I have to state that you've made good points about using both versions of the source. Flyer22 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Cancer and breast implants

Could someone clarify two things in the article?

• Did she have cancer or a tumour or some other lump or anomaly which provoked this? The article currently quotes her as calling it "preventive" but doesn't necessarily imply it was completely unprovoked.
• What type of replacement did she get? Standard (saline?) breast implants, or a fat graft?

Maybe someone who's read other articles will know these things. Thanks. Gronky (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it isn't explicitly clear that she doesn't have breast cancer. The preventive medicine link and preventive mastectomy link and text in the article are pretty clear about that without stating "Jolie didn't have breast cancer." And a mastectomy isn't a cure for breast cancer. Flyer22 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article explains what provoked it: "Jolie has a defective BRCA1 gene resulting in an increased risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer ... Her doctor explained that Jolie's family history warranted a BRCA mutation genetic test". Helen (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Jolie's treatment regimen was also posted on the website of the Pink Lotus Breast Center where she was treated". You can click on the link referenced to read all the technical details. Helen (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll give it a read and see if I can clarify the article.

I know she said "preventive", but that doesn't exclude much. A doctor can find a lump or a shadow and suggest further tests or just removing the lump, but then she could have decided to go further and preventively go for a double masectomy. That's still preventive, so the current text doesn't say whether or not she had a tumour (cancerous, suspect, or non-cancerous). Jumping from "preventive" to saying there was nothing to provoke this, is inventing facts. Gronky (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and added the info available: [3]

Remaining questions are:

• Was there a suspicion of cancer? (She and the doctor never say there wasn't)
• Are the implants silicon? (the doctor's article says that such implants are usually silicon but doesn't explicitly say that this is the case for Ms. Jolie. She says they used saline implants for the initial expanders, but these may be replaced by silicon)
• Are the allografts from Ms. Jolie or from a donor? What part of the body did they come from?

None of these questions are terribly important, and we may never know since she can keep whatever information she chooses private, but I just wanted to note that these are unanswered questions so that people don't presume the answers and add unconfirmed info to the article. Gronky (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Preventive medicine," as our article on it states, is to prevent disease. And "preventive mastectomy," as our article on it states, is to reduce the risk of breast cancer. Both are done to keep a person from getting cancer. Again, I don't see how this isn't clear. The only suspicion of cancer was that Jolie had a 87% increased risk of developing breast cancer and still has a 50% increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. But the section in the article, because of your addition, now also explicitly currently states "Testing of the removed breast tissue showed no signs of cancerous cells." So her not yet having cancer should be very clear to our readers. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example:

1. Woman goes to doctor, doctor does scan, sees a shadow that can't be identified.
2. Doctor takes tiny sample with needle and sends it for a biopsy, finds it's a tumour. Could be benign or malignant (cancerous).
3. They decide to remove the tumour. Doctor later determines that it was indeed benign (or malignant).

The woman could ask for a double mastectomy after any of those three points and it would be preventive. Preventive surgery doesn't mean the woman didn't have a shadow/tumour/cancer. There could have been a tiny cancer, which could have been treated by removing just that piece of tissue, but the woman could opt for a double masectomy just to be sure - to prevent a more dangerous cancer.

There are loads of possibilities. Ms. Jolie and her doctor never say if she did or didn't have a shadow on a scan, or found a tumour, or some anomalous tissue or even if she'd already had a small cancerous tumour removed, recently or years ago. She mentions genes, but that's a parallel issue. We can't write that there were no signs of cancer if there's no source to confirm that claim. Otherwise we're just making stuff up, and we don't do that here on Wikipedia. Gronky (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Preventive medicine and preventive mastectomy mean what I pointed out above. And Jolie has been very clear that she had surgery to prevent cancer and that she does not already have it (such as saying that she can tell her kids that they don't have to worry about her having breast cancer and dying from it), which, yes, means that she does not have cancer. And like I stated, if this article weren't clear before to some readers that Jolie does not have cancer, it is now after the aforementioned addition you added (unless the readers are comprehending the information significantly differently than how most people comprehend it). Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Further, we have not written that "there were no signs of cancer," except for the "Testing of the removed breast tissue showed no signs of cancerous cells." text that you added. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article text is fine. I just explained errors made here on the Talk page where preventive medicine is not understood and assumptions are being presented as facts. Gronky (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand preventive medicine, especially being very familiar with medical topics (which is why I am a part of WP:MED), and there are no errors in anything I stated about it above. Since you now feel that no further clarification is needed in the aforementioned section in the article, this discussion between you and I is now hopefully over. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it will clarify things for you, Gronky, if, when you see "preventative mastectomy" in the article, you think to yourself "prophylactic mastectomy". Does that help at all? Yours, Wordreader (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That changes nothing. Gronky (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Aunt died of breast cancer

Does someone want to add that her maternal aunt died of breast cancer on the 27th of May 2013 [[4]]Steveastrouk (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It was in the article, but I reverted for the reasons stated in those edit summaries. I don't mind the material being added appropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have readded it with sources. I think it belongs under family history. The diagnosis is as important as her death. Helen (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the date of the op-ed is not as important as the date of Jolie's surgery. Helen (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to write an edit summary. Need more coffee. Helen (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you added it a minute, or seconds, before I created this section on the talk page. As for "belongs under family history," do you mean the "family paragraph" where you placed it (which is the first paragraph)? I don't object to that, despite the date for her aunt's death being more recent than the other dates. As the aforementioned edit summaries show, I more so objected to the previous editor adding the text without a source and mentioning The New York Times op-ed before we even get to that point; not to mention that it left The New York Times text linked in its second occurrence, rather than in its first; was a sloppy addition.

No worries about not having left an edit summary for this latest addition. Flyer22 (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I first opened the other talk section and the sentence I was responding to was gone. Yes I mean the first paragraph where I placed it, where her family medical history is discussed. Her aunt was diagnosed in 2004 so Jolie would have known about it long before her surgery and her op-ed which is only when the public found out about it. Helen (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Mastectomy

The mastectomy info should be in personal life, not media. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been added there, though, per, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs, "[s]hort paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the material was initially in the Personal life section. But because I stated in that edit summary that it doesn't fit well under the Relationships heading, and shouldn't have its own section unless significantly expanded, that's why an editor moved it to the Media section...while touching on public aspects so that it better fits there; for example, the editor added this bit about the public. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

hahah yup, i agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.140.78 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the final diagnosis of her mental illness?

She says she suffered from self harm and depression when she was young.But you didn't mention the diagnosis of her illness. 5.120.133.128 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Many people have said that she likely has, or used to have, borderline personality disorder, including a claim that she was diagnosed with it. However, I am unable to find a reliable source that states what, if anything, she has been diagnosed with. 188.29.31.221 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

BPD edits

Note for archive: This is the discussion HelenOnline was referring to, spurred on by these edits:[5][6][7][8]. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed tag for BLP noticeboard discussion as it has been archived (and hopefully resolved). HelenOnline 06:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Unauthorized biography

I have drafted something about Morton's biography for the "In the media" section if the consensus supports it:

"An unauthorized biography by Andrew Morton published in 2010, which makes various claims about Jolie's wild youth, has been criticized for its lack of reliable sources."

Sources:

• Morton, Andrew (2010). Angelina: An Unauthorized Biography. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 031255561X.
• Maslin, Janet (July 25, 2010). "A Home-Wrecking Humanitarian, Footnote Free". The New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2013.
• Bara, Allen (August 11, 2010). "Andrew Morton's 'Angelina': The worst book of the decade". Salon. Retrieved 8 August 2013.

This would work as part of a paragraph on biographies/significant articles that have been written about Jolie, since it is the media section after all. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I like where you are going with this but I am not sure about the phrase "...criticized for its lack of reliable sources". I read through the sources you've cited and while the lack of reliable sources are mentioned this does not seem to be precisely what the book is most criticized for. It seems like most people are criticizing the author for making things up, so we need an encyclopedic way to express that. Maybe "lack of journalistic integrity" or to that effect? Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 15:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. On a similar note, maybe "wild youth" could be rephrased to "youthful transgressions" or something similar. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned about the new content about this biography. My concerns are two:

1. Are we giving undue weight to this book? (The answer to this question will depend not only on critical response but also I think on the sales figures. If nobody has bought it and nobody has liked it then we should keep our mention of it brief.)
2. Are we opening ourselves up to neutrality challenges that will require us to devote space to praise of this book?

I would like to address these questions here before changing the text. The text is well written btw; I just want to make sure we are considering all the angles here. Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 15:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I won't be offended if others edit it, I just wanted to start somewhere as I felt it should be mentioned in the article. I have simultaneously been editing Morton's article, which incidentally has quite a detailed section on Tom Cruise's unauthorized bio (which also has a main article) which gave me a benchmark of sorts. As far as I can tell Angelina was on the NYT non-fiction bestseller list for several weeks but did not make #1: starting at #3, dropped to #7 the following week and #10 the week after that and was on the extended list for two more weeks. Most of the online articles about the book are simply dishing the dirt not actual book reviews, and the actual book reviews were not complimentary. HelenOnline 16:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

'Success' headings

Please omit this word, this is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine.Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the International success: 2001–2005 and Continued success: 2005–2011 headings, and indeed this article was judged as encyclopedic of the highest Wikipedia caliber when it passed with the "International success, 2001–present" heading as a WP:Featured article (though I did notice the inappropriate "Film Career" capitalization; inappropriate per WP:Manual of Style). Flyer22 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Such headings are a commonly accepted format on Wikipedia, including for biographies. Flyer22 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm also objecting to both the above. I believe that we should state the facts plainly, not put a positive spin on them.Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

This article is not the place to start trying to change commonly accepted format practices. And those headings, at least with regard to this article, are not "a positive spin." They are supported by WP:Reliable sources in their sections. Per WP:Manual of Style, Wikipedia headings should be precise, and "International success," for example, is precise for the material it covers, while simply stating "2001–2005" is not as precise; the latter is describing the years, not telling us what the section is about in general. Therefore, I cannot be convinced that the "success headings" should be removed. I also find it odd that you focused on the "success headings" when I see more of case for looking for a different word for the Breakthrough: 1998–2000 heading. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, considering that she's continued to have success past 2011, the "Continued success" part of the "Continued success: 2005–2011" heading should be changed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Flyer, I had the same thought when I looked over the section headings. I think this is an artifact of the way the article has evolved over time. What happened was the "International Success" heading was obvious because it covered the part of her career in which she become an international superstar and one of the highest paid Hollywood stars in history. In this context "International Success" was entirely appropriate as it was the defining characteristic of this phase of her career. Later, the next heading "Continued Success" was added in an attempt to provide consistency. By the time 2011 rolled around all attempts at consistency had been abandoned--and with good reason because And even more continued international success: 2011 to present sounds silly and practically unencyclopedic. I do not think we should be bound by the existing headings or time divisions and should consider different ways to divide the sections (some of which seem suspiciously random right now anyway, specifically the last two). I'll offer some ideas but remain neutral towards any of them pending discussion and, hopefully, better suggestions:

1. Keep the titles
2. Tweak the titles to removed "continued success" which sounds admittedly tacky and also implies that there was no more success in the later section
3. Rename all subsections to have just the years
4. Combine the last two sections to have a more logical progression, i.e.

• Early work: 1982; 1991–1997
• Breakthrough: 1998–2000
• International success: 2001–2005
• International icon: 2005–present

Or we can do something else.

I am tossing these out as strawmen to spur discussion so please let's discuss.

Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good analysis, Dusty, and I agree with it. Not to mention that the standards for WP:Featured articles have gotten stricter over the years. Per above, it seems that we should keep the "International success" heading. But I'm not sure what to do about the "continued success" matter, other than to remove it. Per my statement above about precise headings, I don't feel that we should simply go by years. I mean, while it's obvious that the first section would contain her early work, the "Breakthrough" and "International success" headings are very helpful. I still feel that we could perhaps use a more encyclopedic word than "breakthrough," though. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If we look at the late U.S. singer Michael Jackson's (featured) page; instead of 'success' headings, there are key events marking each era. The article's introduction claims he's: 'recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records.'Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Musicians typically release an album every 2-3 years, and their careers (tours and promotion) are built around their current album, so these "key events" are more obvious than with actors who make 2-3 films a year. Additionally, musicians' articles generally contain all-encompassing "Life and career" sections, whereas actors' articles tend to discuss their personal and professional lives in separate sections. So we can't really fashion Jolie's article after Jackson's, unless we change the overall structure. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A term like "icon" seems unencyclopedic to me, whereas "success" is an accurate description of Jolie's career at that point. Until fairly recently it said "International success: 2001-present", until the section became too long and it was split for readability. I don't have a problem with either "International success" or "Continued success". I do think "2011-present" needs extra wording, preferably to reflect that Jolie is now a director. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Beingsshepherd, I saw your 00:40 reply at about the time you posted it. I simply didn't feel like responding at that time. But what I would have stated is that, as someone who watches the Michael Jackson article and occasionally edits it, I had looked at its headings to see if it uses "success" before you mentioned that aspect.

Prayer for the wild at heart, the problem with the "Continued success" heading is what has been stated above; that heading should definitely be changed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I disagree; I think it's fine as is. That said, I'm not opposed to it being changed. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't feel that the "Continued success" heading implies that she has not had any continued success post 2011? I'm confused that you don't see it that way, but it helps that you are open to changing that heading. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for more detail on what Prayer for the wild at heart stated above about Wikipedia articles for musical artists, see this discussion that was recently had at the Michael Jackson article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand, though, how Dusty mistook one of those headings as needing fixing. But notice that the word is in italics, other sections in that article start out with the album name (which may also be the tour name), and that it would be odd to start a History section for Jackson that late. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I much prefer the structure of musicians' articles, like Madonna (entertainer). It leaves everything embedded in context, a flowing narrative rather than disconnected bits and pieces. I would prefer Jolie's article to be structured that way, but I suppose it's against guidelines. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that it's not against any guideline, but I'd rather stay away from such a structure partly because it is not standard practice for Wikipedia actor/actress biographies. The other reason is that, for this article, I prefer that there is a Humanitarian work section, a Personal life section with its subheadings (Relationships, Children, Cancer prevention treatment), and an In the media section. Though I suppose that if this article were structured similar to the Madonna (entertainer) article, we would keep the Humanitarian work and In the media sections, or maybe simply the In the media section, separate, like the Artistry section of the Michael Jackson and Madonna (entertainer) articles are separate. Then again, Jolie's humanitarianism work is so notable and is such a continual thing, that it would probably be best to keep it as a separate section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

After this edit, I went ahead and removed the "Continued success" part of the heading (obviously because of what I, as well as Dusty, stated about it above). Flyer22 (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And while one could state that "International success" implies that she hasn't had any more international success, it's clear that it's a heading that exists to document a section that is specifically about her having become an international star. Flyer22 (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The matter of The Tourist

I am noticing something that I didn't expect -- a miniature wiki-war over whether The Tourist deserves mention as one of Jolie's top-grossing live action films. I came along with the idea of disputing that the movie was "a major critical failure". As I started getting into the article more, I added what I thought was a rather cool table to showcase the gross receipts of Jolie's top movies. Then, something peculiar started to happen. User:Flyer22 mostly reversed my editing. Then User:Mr RD comes along, and it appears that he agrees with me that The Tourist merits recognition as a globally appreciated film. Within days, User:Prayer for the wild at heart is there to undo much of Mr RD's work. Instead of badgering back and forth on the article, do you think we can have a discussion here to get at whether there is some motivation by all parties to "fix" this article in a way that is fair and factual, rather than grinding an axe? - Inflight Allright (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I took these matters to WP:FILM for wider input: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The Tourist (2010 film). For the record, I agree with Prayer for the wild at heart the the The Tourist shouldn't be in the lead, not unless we are noting it as one of Jolie's biggest critical failures in contrast to its commercial success. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments as requested at the Film project:

1. I think referring to it as a "major critical failure" is a bit WP:PEACOCK, but I don't think referring to the critical reception as "mixed" is truly representative of it either. The Rotten Tomatoes (interpreted by the Washington Post as "not terribly kind") and Metacritic scores are quite poor, while The Atlantic considers them "tepid". Admittedly this is a US centric view, but if you want to state that the reviews were "mixed" then a source is needed to back up that view.
2. A box office chart listing the box office for her films would probably be misplaced in this article, and I agree with Flyer that the Angelina Jolie filmography would be a better place to include it.
3. I have no strong opinions on whether to include The Tourist in the lede. There is a slight argument for including it based on the fact it is her second-best performing film overseas (leaving aside her voiceover work), but at the same time I don't really think it resides among the notable films of her career. Films should be kept to a bare minimum in the lede, and should be restricted to key works IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, Betty. And per WP:Undue weight, I'd state that we'd need more than one source saying that reviews for the film were/are mixed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleopatra Film

Is there any more information on whether Jolie will or will not be appearing in an upcoming film about Cleopatra? If so, is it worth a mention? Tomh903 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any news since Ang Lee supposedly joined the project in the beginning of this year. We can add something once they start production. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Change "controversial Golden Globe Award nomination"

Under Continued success: 2005–2011v "Jolie received a controversial Golden Globe Award nomination for her performance, which gave rise to speculation that it had been given merely to ensure her high-profile presence at the awards ceremony.[60][61)"

Controversial and speculated to and by whom? The Hollywood Reporter tabloid site cited? Hardly a factual database of information, only op-ed. Or should all controversy claimed by any tabloid be added to Wiki pages as a "source" of factual information? The Peter Travers cite mentions no such controversy, just his question of why it was nominated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha66. (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "controversial" is excessive, I will remove it. I don't see the problem with mentioning the latter; THR and Travers speculate on the motivation behind the nomination, that worthy of a mention I think. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Please remove "Sarajevo – Bosnia and Herzegovina (honorary)" from the infobox. Honorary citizenship is irrelevant and has only symbolic value. 173.76.108.247 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; I originally added it (along with her Cambodian citizenship) to complete the infobox, but it probably is irrelevant. I recall User:HelenOnline restoring the information a while ago, so I'm pinging her to see if she agrees. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about it. I only restored it because the reason for removing it was invalid. Thanks for asking :) HelenOnline 13:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it as the infobox parameter documentation states, "Country of legal citizenship, if different from nationality." I know in my country a honorary citizen does not have the same privileges as a legal citizen so I extrapolated from that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Religion

I've been trying to add her religious views (none) to this page using this reference: http://www.religionfacts.com/celebrities/angelina_jolie.htm

It got reverted as being an 'unreliable source'. How is a quote of something she actually said unreliable? Benimation (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Religionfacts does not have an independent editorial process (per [9]) so fails WP:SPS. Even if it were reliable I question the logic of including a "negative" in this capacity. If she proclaimed herself to be Jewish/Catholic then we would include that; if she stated she were an atheist or agnostic then that would be eligible information too. However, what that website says is "Angelina Jolie does not identify herself with any single religion, nor has she declared herself an atheist (contrary to the claims of some atheist websites {5}). The subject of religion has not often come up in her interviews, so her beliefs about such things as God and the afterlife are not well documented." Simply put, she has not injected her religious beliefs into the public domain. Just because she appears to not believe in God—which incidentally, she does not directly say—does not mean she isn't religious. She could be a pantheist, Buddhist, pagan or even a secular Jew. We shouldn't make assumptions based on what she doesn't say. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Betty. Yes, Benimation was reverted here by Lady Lotus because the addition was unsourced, and then here by me because the addition is not a WP:Reliable source. Benimation, do you think you would benefit from having a Welcome template on your talk page to help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines? Though the Benimation Wikipedia account was created in 2010 (also used only once in 2010), your contribution history shows that you don't edit Wikipedia much and are perhaps generally inexperienced with the way things work at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The source for that quote can be found on archive.org[10] but without other reliable sources there's nothing significant enough to be mentioned in the article. Peter James (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cited as "most beautiful" by whom? and why is this claim important to a supposedly objective article about a celebrity?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Who says Jolie is the "most beautiful" woman in the world? CVlaims like this are entirely speculative and have no place in an "encyclopedi" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.242.246 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you the editor who made this argument three years ago in the "Most beautiful" is unencyclopedic discussion? It was gone over pretty well in that discussion why it is important to note that great attention, such as being called "most beautiful," has been given to her looks. That reason is because, well, great attention has been given to her looks. Far more than any other modern celebrity, or famous person in general, I can name, she has been repeatedly cited as "the most beautiful woman in the world." It is relevant to her notability, and, per WP:LEAD, is mentioned in the lead, because it is one of the major points discussed lower in the article. We do the same with regard to Brad Pitt and some other celebrities. In fact, in a similar vein, I cannot think of any other modern male celebrity, not George Clooney, or anyone else, who has been cited as the ultimate symbol of male beauty as much as Brad Pitt has. It's also why people's heads nearly exploded when Pitt and Jolie became a couple and when they produced biological children together. These two articles made it to WP:Featured article status with information about these celebrities' looks noted in the lead and in the lower body of the article because it is encyclopedic to note this major aspect of their notability. If you want to know "whom" (as in who holds that view), then, like Template:Whom states, "all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." Not to mention...specifics are addressed lower in the article. I've been meaning to add a bit of what that Vanity Fair source mentions about the fact that "the competition wasn't even close" when people voted Jolie as "most beautiful" out of the other famous women there were to choose from. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: The topic of discussing the perceived physical attractiveness of actors/actresses was recently discussed at WP:FILM, and an editor there offered a good suggestion about how to discuss the matter with regard to commentary on Jolie's looks. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: I tweaked the "most beautiful" part in the lead so that the "by whom?" aspect is clearer and reads more objectively (though she's also often been named "most beautiful" by the general public). I also expanded a bit on the aforementioned Vanity Fair aspect. Those edits are seen here and here. The in depth material that Betty suggested should be added at some point. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie - children

I have edited paragraph 4.2 on Angelina Jolie's children. It is quite hard to remember, or know, in some cases which of her children are girls and which are boys, because of their names. The article obviously indicates it, and I have edited the boxed list to show it here as well. --P123cat1 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable and done in a useful way.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Philosophical views

I tried to add a sentence about Angelina Jolie's interest in the philosophy of Objectivism. Lady Lotus undid the edit, claiming that mentioning hobbies is not allowed. Yet, I pointed out that a secular philosophy is no more of a hobby than a religion is, and that in any case Jolie's entry mentions "Jolie holds a private pilot license and owns a single-engine Cirrus SR22 aircraft", which surely is a hobby. I received no reply from Lady Lotus. According to the 'Religion' section of this talk page, Lady Lotus does not think that mentioning religion is not allowed, provided that the statement is well sourced. My statement on Jolie's secular philosophy was well sourced.

Bencherlite claims that it's trivial, also not explaining his/her reasoning as to why a secular philosophy is 'trivial' but a private pilot license is not. --Renren8123 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The second source cited with your edit seems to be based on the first source, so all we really have is this out of context comment from Jolie: "I just think (Ayn Rand) has a very interesting philosophy" in a website article not just about her but quoting many celebrities. That is not very much to go on at all and I would definitely consider it non-notable trivia for this article. I definitely would not characterise it as evidence of "a secular philosophy". For relevant Wikipedia policy, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jolie is probably interested in a great many things and we cannot include them all here without diluting the value of the article. Information included in articles needs to be encyclopedic as well as verifiable. If this interest had influenced Jolie's life in a significant way, and this was well covered in reliable sources, it may well be considered encyclopedic however. HelenOnline 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did respond if you had looked at my response after your post on my talk page yesterday morning. And as I said on there, saying she's just "interested" in the philosophy is very different than saying she practices a philosophy like Buddhism or Taoism. It's different, and inserting a single sentence about it is trivial. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've noted in the edit history of this article more than once that I think that the "Jolie holds a private pilot license and owns a single-engine Cirrus SR22 aircraft." text should be removed; it's trivial, in my opinion, and is not a good fit for the In the Media section. Not to mention that it's a lone sentence, which we should try to avoid...per MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I noticed that you linked Lady Lotus's username three times above; I'm not stating the following to be snide or anything: All it takes is one instance of linking a username; the WP:Echo will (usually) reach the person. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I removed the license/flight matter, per what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Third highest domestic opening weekend ever for a solo female star. The Dave Hollis commentary. Should these bits stay in the article?

Krimuk90 removed this bit that Dragonzbb11 (talk · contribs) added, calling it fluff. Though it may be best to use better sources for that material, it doesn't seem like fluff to me to note that Jolie, as Maleficent, had the third highest domestic opening weekend ever for a solo female star.

As for the Dave Hollis, Walt Disney Studios's executive vice president of theatrical distribution commentary, I'm iffy on that; it can be considered fluff. But then again, he credits Jolie with being a large part of the film's success, saying, "Angelina Jolie is a very big part of the overall equation. As a star, she's a draw that transcends culture and borders and language. There's a universal nature to the intrigue she creates." I was going to state that it gives the vague "but Jolie's performance was singled out for praise" commentary some context. But Krimuk90 added this, which takes care of the context for the praise commentary. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll re-add the bit about the third highest domestic opening weekend ever for a solo female star. I stand by the rest of my edit, as critical commentary is better than what a studio executive has to say about "his own" film. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, I see your point. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014

Change DBE to DCMG as she has been made a Dame Commander of St Michael and St George not a DBE. See http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/13/angelina-jolie-dame-queens-birthday-honours-list 87.127.39.236 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Honorary Damehood

I don't want to mess this up as it's a Featured Article so won't make any changes myself, but I am wondering how we deal with her Honorary Damehood (see this BBC article for more details). I ought to know this being a UK citizen, but is she entitled to use the title? In other words, can she call herself "Dame Angelina Jolie"? How do we display it on Wikipedia? Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the Dame prefix isn't used in this case, such as with previous recipients of Honorary DBEs like Esperanza Aguirre, Helen Suzman and Simone Veil. This is Paul (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would think that is correct; the same rules are likely to apply as for Honorary Knighthoods, e.g. Bob Geldof & Spike Milligan, who can use the letters KBE after their names but not use "Sir". Terry Wogan has, or took out, dual nationality so he is permitted to entitle himself "Sir".Eagleash (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

She is entitled to use the post-nominal letters DBE, and here in Britland she will be 'Angelina Jolie DBE'. As a technically 'foreign' citizen - although us Brits don't really think of Americans as 'foreign' - it is an honourary title, so she cannot - again technically - call herself 'Dame'. 81.132.190.27 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is correct.Eagleash (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

She'll use 'DCMG' not 'DBE'. The Order of St Michael and St George is different to the Order of the British Empire. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pregnancy - IVF?

Was it ever confirmed that Jolie's 2008 pregnancy was the result of IVF or not? Or do they remain unconfirmed rumors? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Education

The article says nothing about her education. Did she complete college? At one point she was taking flying lessons. Did she complete these and become a licensed pilot? Details like these are far more important than where she lived in New York City. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Virgil H. Soule (Zbvhs), in the #Philosophical views section above, you can see where text about her having a pilot license was removed; I removed it because it seemed trivial where it was placed. But it can fit with whatever text you are talking about regarding flying lessons. What section is that text located? Wherever it is located, feel free to add the aforementioned pilot text there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

DBE?

It says in the article that she is both DCMG and DBE. What is the source for DBE (Dame of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire)? Because I think that is a misunderstanding in media about her DCMG. 85.230.200.230 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding somehow. I have removed the 'DBE'. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Main image

• 
• 
• 
• 

The 2007 side view isn't an improvement. Personally I'd prefer File:Angelina Jolie by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg as the main image.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I like the current one of her in 2012, it's the best headshot with nothing obstructing her face (like a microphone ;)) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer File:Angelina-Jolie cropped.jpg, but the others are fine, too. Really I'm just curious to know what "shock value" PS171 sees in the 2012 image. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Right? What shock value either of the images he suggested has? Doesn't even make sense LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the images in question in a gallery above. Unfortunately WP:LEADIMAGE does not define clearly enough the way images should be selected, I only used the wording found there. On the other hand, the current pic with the strange smile IS a bit "shocking" to me. PS171 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And what exactly do you mean by shocking? It's her. Smiling. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Late comment: I prefer this lead image, which was the lead image before Lady Lotus made this change. I know that the image I prefer is from 2011, and that having a 2011 image (or even a 2012 image in the case of what Lady Lotus added) can conflict with editors who feel that "newer is better" when it comes to lead images of celebrities, but, out of all the latest image options (images from 2010 to 2012), I still prefer that one. Newer is not always better, and newer is not necessary unless the celebrity looks drastically different (due to age, hair style or hair color, etc.) than they do in the older picture. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Another option, taken this month...--Stemoc (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes! To Stemoc's image LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! That is an excellent image, Stemoc, and it's from 2014 (which keeps the "must use up-to-date image" editors from swapping it, at least on the grounds that it's not up-to-date). Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I updated the lead image with Stemoc's proposal (and made a fix to the caption afterward). If the image that I removed to add this one is added back to the article, I prefer that it's not added in place of any of the existing images in the article. Except for the microphone image, I like all of the existing images that are in the article better than the aforementioned 2012 image and I don't see a need for the aforementioned 2012 image in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

She's pretty sweaty on that pic, but I see that others might have other priorities. PS171 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

PS171, I don't consider a little shine on the forehead and cheek, which is common in pictures, and especially in the case of women wearing makeup (the oil from the makeup), to be "pretty sweaty." And what "other priorities" are you referring to? Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm just asking whether or not you consider the first two pics above (start of thread) as probably better than the current one (although the current one too is OK). PS171 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the current one because not only is it a good picture, it's very recent. I noted above that "it's from 2014 (which keeps the 'must use up-to-date image' editors from swapping it, at least on the grounds that it's not up-to-date)." Using a picture from 2007 or otherwise from a few years ago will just lead to WP:Edit warring or repeated image swapping without WP:Edit warring. And though Jolie does not look drastically different now than she did in 2007, she has visibly aged (though one can't tell that she has aged in any significant way from the aforementioned current lead image). Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Although many think that the most recent pics should be included, there's no such demand in WP:LEADIMAGE. PS171 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014

She also have Hungarian ancestors. For example Elemér/Elmer from Kassa, former Hungarian Kingdom(today Kosice, Slovakia. Upperland is a multiethnic region, in the past Kassa was a mostly Hungarian city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.189.76 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Those ancestors identified themselves as ethnically Slovak, per citation 11. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Image of Angelina's Visit to Jaffna

The above image is tagged for deletion by User:Lady Lotus and then removed from the Angelina Jolie's page with the reason Copyvio. When I re-added after giving the reason in the deletion discussion page, the image was removed from the page by User:Betty Logan with the reason, "Section looks cluttered; only one photo is needed and the other one is better". I am wondering the timing of these removals and the reasons. If the page is really too cluttered better we can remove the image where Angelina is with Condoleezza Rice since that doesn't have any news value compare to the image of her Jaffna visit.Jeevanram (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

World Refugee Day is a UNHCR event, so the Rice one needs to stay. If yours is legit, I guess you could just add it to the next section. I like it because it's the oldest one we have of Jolie. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not telling World Refugee Day is not an UNHCR event, but what is the importance that has got rather than a field visit of Angelina in the war zone as the UNHCR's Goodwill Ambassador? If your answer is satisfactory, I will add the image to the next section. Otherwise I will add back to the same section as it was earlier(though I won't remove the image of Angelina with Rice.Jeevanram (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Married to Brad Pitt

News sources have confirmed they are now married (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28965212). Various edits needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.13.157 (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oscar

She has received two Academy Awards: Best Supporting Actress(1999) and the Humanitarian Award (2014). --95.17.209.82 (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Filmography

There have been several edits recently adding Kung Fu Panda 2 to the filmography section of the article ([11], [12], [13]). This is a very selective filmography, just listing Jolie's most notable roles. It seems the editor in question is pushing Kung Fu Panda for some reason, but if everyone added their favorite Jolie films then there would be no reason for Angelina Jolie filmography to exist. Unless the person is principally known as a voiceover artist then I don't think voiceover roles should be included in Angelina_Jolie#Filmography, since the Angelina Jolie filmography adequately covers these. Jolie doesn't even appear in these films, so if we are going to add further films to Angelina_Jolie#Filmography I can think of plenty of films that should be considered before Kung Fu Panda. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Betty. I was busy with other matters at the time that I saw your post and didn't read it until now. I agree with your take on this filmography matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014

Please remove "Dame" from the top of the infobox. Miss Jolie cannot use that title because she is not a British citizen. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

as an honorary member of the order, Angelina Jolie cannot use the prefix "Dame"

As a foreign citizen of a non-commonwealth country, though Jolie has been appointed to the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George as a Dame Grand Cross, she is only an honorary member and as such, can not use the "Dame" prefix, only the "DCMG" initials after her name. Thus, the very beginning of her Wikipedia page needs to be corrected to remove the "Dame" before her name.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St_Michael_and_St_George#Precedence_and_privileges Abnadx (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, in June Jolie was made a Dame Commander (DCMG), but today she was supposedly given the insignia of a Dame Grand Cross (GCMG). So what is she? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• No, the initial press release was wrong and the Palace has since corrected itself. She is an hon DCMG (see: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/355837/2014_Honorary_Awards_-_September.pdf for formal proof). She was given the correct insignia for DCMG which is a badge on a bow and a breast star (the GCMG would have been a collar, breast star, mantle and hat). --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 17:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the insignia? The only major publication I can find that gets it right is the Daily Mail, which I don't want to use. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• The relevant Wikipedia article has some images of the insignia for the order but like I said, the GCMG would have entailed a collar and more substantial dress which was not given to her at the time and so is consistent even without seeing the insignia in the box properly. In any case, my colleagues and I, who are interested in insignia, medals and orders of chivalry, have spotted this error a mile away and are collectively facepalming ourselves. It's like someone was given a silver medal and everyone thinking it is a gold because the media erroneously reported it as so. Also, I have linked the Honours List publication as proof that she was made a DCMG and I very much doubt that within a space of a few months she would have advanced to a GCMG! --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 18:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The confusion over this is hilarious. I found it very difficult to believe that Jolie would be made a GCMG - this is a very high honour in the British Honours system. The long standing joke in the Civil Service has a ring of truth about it: KCMG - Kindly Call Me God; and GCMG - God Calls Me God. Well done to Charlie Huang for confirming the source material.Ds1994 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• If she was made a GCMG, she would have been asked to attend the quadrennial service at St Paul's Cathedral when the entire Order next meets to be invested with the regalia and be installed. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 10:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The "dame" title needs to be removed from above her picture too! Colinfyoung (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pilot

I restored the info about Jolie owning a private pilot license (PPL) and her own plane. I thought it was removed without explanation but then I saw this past archive in which someone thought that info was trivial. Jolie started as a student pilot in 2004 before getting her PPL in 2005 and instrument rating in 2006. She would've dedicated many hours of work over several years to achieve this, so this is certainly not some trivial feat in her life. I placed the info in the "In the Media" section because it seems like the only place it can fit into in this article. Spellcast (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Spellcast, I reverted you here. As you know, in the aforementioned archive, I stated, "I've noted in the edit history of this article more than once that I think that the 'Jolie holds a private pilot license and owns a single-engine Cirrus SR22 aircraft.' text should be removed; it's trivial, in my opinion, and is not a good fit for the In the Media section. Not to mention that it's a lone sentence, which we should try to avoid...per MOS:PARAGRAPHS."

Your edit tagged the information onto information about her tattoos; that doesn't make the information look any more fit for that section than it being a standalone sentence does. The information looks out of place, and like an afterthought. When WindRider26 (talk · contribs) added the information about her being a pilot, to that section, before NeilN reverted, at least the material fit better. When WindRider26 added the material to the Children section, it also fit okay to me. But Prayer for the wild at heart removed it as trivial. I don't mind information about her being a pilot being in the article...as long as it does not come across as trivial and/or feel out of place in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In other words, I don't think that being a pilot is trivial to her; I'm concerned about the information seeming trivial. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If it is restored then we need more sources discussing it so we can judge weight and come up with proper context. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added mention of her pilot license to the Humanitarian work section: "To further aid her travels, she began taking flying lessons in 2004 with the aim of ferrying aid workers and food supplies around the world; she now holds a private pilot license with instrument rating." It's maybe a bit silly but that was Jolie's original motivation for becoming a pilot. I don't think it's trivial I just really hate when it's added to other sections where it has no relevance. Don't love my solution either so I won't object to a removal. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt" name

Shiloh Jolie-Pitt said he would like to be known by John now, and Angelina and Brad are allowing him to do this as well as asking him to be referred to with he/his pronouns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.78.195 (talk • contribs) I think that this should be changed as to respect the wishes of the child as well as his parents.

I googled about it, and found that only the most stupid gossip site PerezHilton reported that. So it's probably a BS. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Tomica, as seen here, GiantSnowman added a WP:Reliable source on the matter. Other WP:Reliable sources have reported on this as well. I just stated here at the Brangelina article, "I think we need to discuss this at the WP:BLP noticeboard since Shiloh is the common name, but there is a MOS:Identity matter." ‎EvergreenFir, as someone who deals with MOS:Identity articles such as Laverne Cox, what do you think should be done in this case? We don't mention Shiloh much in the article, but, like I stated, Shiloh is the recognizable name. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see that Betty Logan just reverted GiantSnowman. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think it is trivia unless i) she legally changes her name or ii) the media start referring to her as "John Jolie-Pitt". Until then I believe it should remain out of the article for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

And the source in question points out that Shiloh behaving in what is considered a boy's role and wanting to be called John does not necessarily mean that it is a transgender matter; it cites various reasons that this could be the case. And as someone very familiar with the research on being transgender, I agree with the source on that. There's a reason that gender identity disorder in children is not treated the same as gender identity disorder in adolescents and adults. The source doesn't mention whether or not Shiloh wants to be referred to by male pronouns, but it's implied. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

She's an eight-year-old kid. The fact that Shiloh is typically a 'boy's name' notwithstanding, it's not necessary to use this trivia piece as a 'transgender' soapbox even if the story is true.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeffro77, I assume that you are talking to me. My "05:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)" post is not an argument for calling Shiloh transgender; it's an argument for stating that there are non-transgender reasons that she may be behaving in what is considered a boy's role/requesting a name that is typically male. I was also making the point that gender identity disorder in children is not treated the same as gender identity disorder in adolescents and adults; the Gender identity disorder in children article addresses why that's the case. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Then again, being gender variant is commonly considered a transgender topic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

My comment was not addressed to any particular editor. It was a general comment regarding the entire issue. A child with a name that is already 'typically male' informally 'requesting' a different 'typically male' name—because it was in a kids' movie—is not automatically a 'transgender' issue, especially if it's only in gossip or tabloid stories.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is only media speculation, rehashing shit from 4-6 years ago just because Shiloh attended the Unbroken premiere in a tuxedo. Without a recent statement from Jolie or Pitt, how would some journalist know what the child wants to be called? That said, if either parent confirms "John" in the future (or already has, and I've missed it), I don't think it should be considered trivia. Gender identity is not trivial, and the way Jolie has handled her child's self-expression over the years (in the face of often negative media attention) speaks to her own parenting style and personality. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: the Telegraph does indeed refer to the child as John, as do other media sources, though they have not started using male personal pronouns. @Prayer for the wild at heart: the Telegraph link I provided confirms that Jolie stated in 2010 that Shiloh/John wishes to be a boy, while it also confirms Brad Pitt has confirmed she/he wishes to be called John. What more do you want? I'm going to raise this at BLPN for wider input. GiantSnowman 09:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Pitt hasn't comfirmed anything, that's my point. He said in November 2008, when Shiloh was 2, that she wanted to be called John because of Peter Pan. In December 2010, when she was 4, Jolie said "Shiloh wanted to be called 'John' for a while" (note the past tense). I'm saying we need a recent statement from either parent, not from when the child was 2-4, to make statements about an 8-year-old. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well People and Daily Mail are not RS - whereas Telegraph is, and it stated very clearly that "Her dad, Brad Pitt, recently disclosed in an interview that when he would call her ‘Shi’, she’d interrupt him saying, ‘I’m John’" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 10:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he said that to Oprah, in November 2008 (see my first link). He has not made any recent statements. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No, "recent" does not mean 6 years ago! GiantSnowman 10:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I give up. Do you, bro. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons: i) The Telegraph identify her as "Shiloh" not as John. It is principally a story about comments her mother made, and the news source still identifies her as "Shiloh" to the reader. If the media start referring to her "John" without reference to "Shiloh", or refer to as John in the primary sense then the media would then be identifying her using her new name; ii) secondly, Shiloh has not made any public declaration about how she wants to be referred to. She has not legally changed her name, she has not issued a personal statement, nor have her parents issued a formal statement on her behalf about how she wishes to be known. It could just be a phase, or a nickname, or part of a game. We don't really know anything actually. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the fact that the child wishes to be called 'John' - reflected in the wording of my edit, which was very basic and neutral and which stated "In December 2014 Shiloh stated she wished to be called 'John'". However the Telegraph article also stated that "Now the whole family address her as John (so we will too)" so they actually identify her as John, not Shiloh. The media refer to both names and so should we. GiantSnowman 13:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The media do not refer to her using both names. They refer to her as Shiloh and the story is about how she likes her family to call her "John". I have not come across any reliable sources where the name "John" is used but "Shiloh" is not. Secondly, none of these stories indicate how she wishes to be known beyond the family boundaries i.e. the name she is registered at school under etc. You are drawing assumptions from what is at the moment a cute family story, and we don't cover cute family stories on Wikipedia. To put it another way, if she liked to be called "Princess Shiloh" by her family would you still be suggesting we incorporate that into the article? Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the media does use both names - as I've already said the Telegraph states "Now the whole family address her as John (so we will too)" [my emphasis]. You haven't found any sources where John is exclusively used? Big whoop. Any article about 'John Jolie-Pitt' would just leave the readers confused. I mean how many sources exclusively used 'Chelsea' when Bradley Manning first transitioned? Or Frank→Kellie Malone, or Simon→Stephanie Hirst etc.? And yes, if 'Princess Shiloh' was a nickname covered by reliable sources then the article should/would reflect that. GiantSnowman 14:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(Outdent) The less said about the children the better --- for them. I would remove all first names and all genders, and just mention that a first child was born to them on date X, a second was adopted by them on date Y, and a third child was delivered by stork on date Z. Short and sweet.166.137.252.122 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, here is what a pertinent policy says:

“ The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. ”

Obviously, details about Jon Voight's minor grandchildren are pretty much irrelevant to understanding Jon Voight's daughter.166.137.252.122 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to point out that People magazine is a WP:Reliable source, including for many WP:BLP matters. The reliability of that source has been discussed various times at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and at the WP:BLP noticeboard; see this big 2013 WP:RfC that took place at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard about it, and this early 2014 discussion where the closer of that WP:RfC clarifies his close. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous Seriously, folks, we're talking about the gender identity of an eight year old. Show me a reliable source where Shiloh hxxself confirms a gender identity change and discusses that Shiloh fully understands the ramifications of adopting a new gender identity, and we may have something worth including. Until then... I mean seriously, dudes, xe's eight. The parents' reports and requests to the media, however well-meaning, can't trump our interest in protecting living persons, and the parents' report (which a cynic could argue is self-promotional) is simple hearsay. Townlake (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Townlake: - who's mentioned gender identity/change? My original edit merely said that she wants to be called John, I did not make any assumptions or comments about gender identity/change. GiantSnowman 08:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You are a fine Wikilawyer, but can we at least pretend to use common sense in assessing the real-world impact of these articles' contents? Townlake (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well the 'real world' media is now commenting on this matter widely, see this and this and many others. The 'Shiloh→John' thing is even 'trending' on Facebook... GiantSnowman 08:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Does Jezebel.com count as 'real media'? I'm not familiar with it, but it looks more like a gossip site.

The article in the other source repeatedly refers to "Shiloh". Unless/until she is actually called 'John' in reliable sources, there is no reason for a change in the article here (or related articles).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman: SHE IS EIGHT YEARS OLD. For the love of God, please stop gossip-mongering about a prepubescent minor. Jezebel might not know any better, but we should. Townlake (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, like it or not, the fact she wants to be called John (for whatever reason) has been covered by multiple, reliable sources. Our article should reflect that. We don't need to speculate on the why, just the basic fact. GiantSnowman 15:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Shiloh is not notable outside of her lineage, and you don't need to read this random one-news-cycle statement of an eight-year-old's current wishes to understand Angelina Jolie. The fact that you're an administrator who should be familiar with BLP, yet you're pressing for this cute factoid to be reported as a gospel fact about Shiloh in an article about Shiloh's parents, speaks poorly to the employment of common sense and basic decency on our project. Townlake (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the above thread, those saying the info should not be present also state it has been an 'issue' for a number of years, so it's hardly the "one-news-cycle statement" you claim it to be. How on earth is a simple statement equivalent to "This child wishes to be called John", backed up by reliable sources, a BLP issue? And yes, I am an administrator who is familiar with BLP, seeing as 90% of my edits are in that area... GiantSnowman 18:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about an 8-year-old-kid who has a thing for the name 'John'. It's stuff for gossip columns, not an encyclopedia. In the future, there may be something more notable to report. At this stage it's trivial. Even if a single statement to the effect of 'the child wishes to be called John' might be warranted, it should not be used as a soapbox for transgender issues.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

...no-one is trying to use it as a soapbox... GiantSnowman 08:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was. I indicated a possible future situation that might warrant further attention, and then indicated that that should not be a soapbox issue, because that frequently happens with this type of story.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You cannot stop making edits now just because someone might, in the future (WP:CRYSTAL applies here) cause a problem. That would stop the majority of edits being made here! We can cross that bridge if/when we come to it. GiantSnowman 11:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't edited the article so I can't stop editing it, and I haven't prevented anyone else from editing it. Aside from that, a few days ago another editor was making this a 'transgender' issue, so I provided a reminder that that should not be done in this case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My initial edit was reverted, and you are saying the material should not be reintroduced. Who was making it a transgender issue? GiantSnowman 12:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I incorrectly recalled part of the discussion from a few days ago. Another editor and I both pointed out a few days ago that it isn't necessarily a transgender issue. As to the other point, if there is consensus to add the point, it can be added. I'm not the only person here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make it into a transgender issue. My edit was literally this. GiantSnowman 12:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with your specific edit, and I haven't made any comment on it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Snowman, your source does not support the statement you want to introduce to the article. Where's the statement from Shiloh herself saying she wants to be called John? Townlake (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit is substantially why I said earlier that an 8-year-old wanting to be called 'John' should not be turned into a transgender soapbox.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I pointed that editor to this talk page; as seen in that link, that editor made a similar edit at the Brad Pitt article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not me and I don't support that edit. Townlake, direct quote from that source - "Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's daughter Shiloh dresses as a boy and wants to be known as John." Jeffro77, if you have no problem with my edit would you support its restoration. GiantSnowman 09:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Snowman, I feel like you're willfully failing to grasp the problem here. I will escalate the issue if this is reintroduced to the article, for the reasons stated above. That said, I have nothing else to add to this conversation for now. Townlake (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What issue?! The fact the child has expressed a desire to be called a different name has been covered by RS. It does not matter that the child is female and the new name is male. That is literally as bloody basic as it gets. GiantSnowman 09:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: A similar discussion was recently had at the Brad Pitt talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Post-nom

Hi... I have added the post nominal DCMG for Jolie's hon damehood, as most articles on other holders do seem to include it in the lead. I've put it in, but will leave it for you guys to decide whether it stays or goes. Crazy-dancing (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Crazy-dancing: Hi, WP:POSTNOM says they "should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated." In recent years Jolie has allied with the UK government in an anti-war rape campaign, which has received wide coverage in the UK media, so it may be something she is "closely associated" with there. But I don't think a government can be considered an organization. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think my argument applies. But I think her damehood is notable enough to go in the lead, so I'm adding it in and removing the post nominal. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Filmmaker

A filmmaker is just another word for director. Filmmaking is just the process of how a film gets made and it doesn't mean it's an occupation.(Atomic Meltdown (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC))

Atomic Meltdown, your point that "[a] filmmaker is just another word for director" does not, in my opinion, justify your edits on this matter. Not only is that not why I was reverting you, the term filmmaker, as is clear from the article you linked to above, can (and often does) refer to a writer, producer, or director. I was reverting you because you kept changing "Actress, filmmaker" to "Actress, writer, producer, director" and "American actress and filmmaker" to "American actress, writer, producer, and director." That is needless overkill. Like I told you when reverting you, "writer, producer, and director" are covered by the term filmmaker; so I see your edits as somewhat redundant in this case. The word filmmaker is not usually used interchangeably with actor or actress. And so "Actress, filmmaker" is all that we need in this case. Also, when someone reverts you and suggests that you take the matter to the article talk page, that does not mean that you should revert again soon after posting a comment about the matter on the talk page. See WP:BRD and WP:Edit warring.

For others and for documentation on this talk page, the edits in question are seen here, here and here. This article went through similar with Losloboskendo, as seen here, here when SNUGGUMS agreed with me, and here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Jeffro77 agreed with me on the matter, and reverted Atomic Meltdown; Atomic Meltdown decided to show up weeks later and re-add his version. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

She won 2 Academy Awards because last year she won the Jean Hersholt special Academy Awards. 79.47.65.232 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but saying Jolie has two Oscars would cause the casual reader to assume she has won both for acting. The Jean Hersholt award is however included elsewhere in the lead. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to "Appearance" section

I would like input on the article's discussion of Jolie's appearance. I never liked that section so I tried rewriting it recently, but now it's just a bigger mess than before. This is what it looks like now.

What I would like to change:

• Keep a select number of her "most beautiful" and "sexiest" accolades (preferably 2-3 of each) and moving the rest into a footnote.
• Keep it to dry facts as much as possible, without fap-fap quotes that directly describe her looks/sex appeal.
• Add discussion of how her looks have affected her career, both positively and negatively.

This is my proposed content:

Proposed content

Jolie's public image is also tied to her perceived beauty and sex appeal. She has frequently received publicity for her physical appearance, often based on public polls. Many media outlets including Vogue, People, and Vanity Fair have cited her as the world's most beautiful woman, while men's and film magazines like Esquire, FHM, and Empire have named her the sexiest woman alive. Especially early in her career, Jolie's apparent sexual appeal to women was notable; AfterEllen considered the fact that so many women, regardless of their sexual orientation, publicly expressed their attraction to Jolie a new development in American culture. On a professional level, some of her most commercially successful films, including Tomb Raider (2001) and Beowulf (2007), overtly relied at least in part on her natural sex appeal. In other ways her appearance has been perceived as a professional hindrance: Salon wrote that Jolie's sexuality has limited her in the types of roles she can be cast in, rendering her unconvincing in many conventional women's roles, while Clint Eastwood, who directed her Oscar-nominated performance in Changeling (2008), opined that her beauty often harmed her credibility with audiences. Jolie's most recognizable physical feature are her full lips, of which The New York Times said, "Not since the heyday of the Kirk Douglas chin and Bette Davis's eyes has a Hollywood star's facial feature so gripped the public imagination." Her large number of tattoos has often been addressed by interviewers. She has an estimated 17 tattoos, among which the Latin proverb "quod me nutrit me destruit" (what nourishes me destroys me), the Tennessee Williams quote "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages," a Buddhist prayer of protection, a twelve-inch tiger, and geographical coordinates indicating the birthplaces of her children. Over time, she has covered or lasered several of her tattoos, including "Billy Bob", the name of her second husband. References

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2015

Thanks for proposing this here at the talk page instead of simply making the changes. As you know, this is what the content used to look like before your redesign, before it was made into its own section. Before your "11:08, 21 January 2015" changes, this is what the content looked like at 11:03, 21 January 2015. I much prefer what the content looks like after your redesign, and I prefer that redesign to your proposed changes above. I also prefer that redesign (the 11:03, 21 January 2015 version) to your 11:08, 21 January 2015 edits. You made that content significantly better, not worse. And I think that the few changes I made to your redesign helped; we've disagreed a little, as noted in the #In the media section discussion above. Feel free to point out any edits of mine that you feel made the section worse. Like you stated in the In the media section discussion, the Appearance section is about how Jolie's beauty is commonly considered the ideal beauty; I agree that the section is mainly about that, and this means that we should highlight certain media pieces that drive home that point. I think that the three decent-sized paragraphs in either the 11:03, 21 January 2015 version or the 11:08, 21 January 2015 serve that purpose well. This is not a section that is supposed to be about simply addressing the fact Jolie is considered beautiful, and it therefore should not seem like a run-of the mill section on a celebrity's beauty.

The only aspects of your proposed content above that I like are you noting that "some of her most commercially successful films, including Tomb Raider (2001) and Beowulf (2007), overtly relied at least in part on her natural sex appeal" and that "[i]n other ways her appearance has been perceived as a professional hindrance: Salon wrote that Jolie's sexuality has limited her in the types of roles she can be cast in, rendering her unconvincing in many conventional women's roles." But as for the rest of your proposed content, this is why I object: I like how the current section begins by noting why her looks have been frequently cited by the media, and that includes the Empire commentary. The first sentence is a good topic sentence, and the second sentence is an excellent expansion on that, tying it into her theater appeal (which is why I added it there). I like how the paragraph then addresses the rest of what is stated in the topic sentence. In your proposal, you state that "Many media outlets [...] have cited her as the world's most beautiful woman, while men's and film magazines [...] have named her the sexiest woman alive.", but we ideally should not cite "many" unless a source states that (also see WP:Weasel word), and the division seems artificial since men's and film magazines have also called her "the most beautiful." I agree that we don't need to, and should not, list every poll, but I think it's better to note why a few of these polls ended up with Jolie named as the most beautiful woman; commentary such as "[the public having] branched out beyond the Barbie-doll ideal and embraced something quite different" is worthy of mentioning, for example. And so are facts about her placing "far ahead of other celebrity women in their respective online polls"; as you know, Allure stated that Jolie was voted "the celebrity that most represents the physical ideal." I'd also like to keep the People "Beautiful at Every Age" piece per what I stated in the In the media section discussion above, and the Time piece per what I stated in the #Societal impact of Jolie's mastectomy in relation to female beauty and femininity section above. In my opinion, the current design starts off well and ends well. Flyer22 (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'm also requesting input from User:Betty Logan and User:Lady Lotus, I think y'all have commented on this stuff before?
—I disagree re: keeping details about the most beautiful/sexiest accolades; the fact that she has been called that, "often based on public polls", is enough and encyclopedically relevant, especially when discussed in context of her image and career. What does all that detail add? It was a mistake on my part to add it.
—Empire's quote is something you would expect to find on AskMen, not Wiki. Just like Clint Eastwood's statement that she has "the most beautiful face on the planet", I almost added that above but thought better. They're nice quotes, but they steer the content towards a tabloid vibe.
—People's "2012's most beautiful at every age" doesn't belong either. I was fine with it but then looked at the source; it's not a separate list but a subsection of their usual Most Beautiful list, which Jolie topped in 2006. It's also not commentary on Jolie through the years/ages, but a weird list of one celebrity per age (e.g. Jolie represents age 32).
—Time's comment is definitely relevant, I was planning to move that to the cancer section.
Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of just keeping the sexiest/prettiest awards to a minimum and also adding how it's either helped or hindered her career. But are the tattoos necessary? I've had a lot of people tell me that tattoos aren't notable because they aren't relevant to her career. Thoughts on that? But otherwise, I like the proposal. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. Tattoos are not necessary in my opinion, my proposed second paragraph can go. But the tattoos have been in the article forever, so it didn't occur to me. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan and I have commented before on how to frame the content regarding Jolie's looks, like I noted in the "Societal impact of Jolie's mastectomy in relation to female beauty and femininity" section above; she stated, in part, "In the case of someone like Angelina Jolie for example, her standing and influence in film is probably more down to her looks and sex appeal than her actual acting talent so the article perhaps shouldn't just ignore the attribute that has propelled her to stardom. It arguably could be framed better, perhaps be more analytical of the role her looks have played in her career, but there are plenty of high quality sources that address her beauty on Google Books: [14]." Well, in my opinion, your redesign applied the type of content that Betty Logan suggested.

I didn't state that we should keep all of the most beautiful/sexiest accolades; I stated, "I agree that we don't need to, and should not, list every poll, but I think it's better to note why a few of these polls ended up with Jolie named as the most beautiful woman; commentary such as '[the public having] branched out beyond the Barbie-doll ideal and embraced something quite different' is worthy of mentioning, for example." I agree with keeping pieces such as that one because it specifically comments on how societal views of beauty have changed, and ties Jolie's looks into that. I also agree with keeping the "far ahead of other celebrity women in their respective online polls" and/or "the celebrity that most represents the physical ideal" aspect because it speaks on how her looks have been compared to other celebrity women. The Empire quote is the type of quote a person would expect on Wikipedia in a section that is specifically commenting on a celebrity's looks and is noting what are considered that celebrity's most striking physical qualities while using WP:In-text attribution to do that. It's no less encyclopedic than the The New York Times quote that you have included and still want included, and, unlike the The New York Times quote, it's absent of the MOS:QUOTE linking matter that can cause an editor to de-link names. Why is Jolie considered beautiful? We should note why, including commentary on her eyes and lips. Why is she considered the most beautiful woman? We should note that, not simply state that she is. Analysis is key to making this content encyclopedic instead of trivial. And that is the point that Betty Logan and I were making on the matter. I don't feel too strongly about the "Beautiful at Every Age" piece, but I prefer that we keep it, per what I've already stated about it, and it actually fits better with your proposed content since that proposed content is absent of the year-by-year commentary that currently exists in the section.

Mention of her tattoos should stay since her tattoos are clearly one of the main aspects of her physical appearance that the media and general public have commented on. As for specifically noting which tattoo she has, I think that a few of the tattoos should remain mentioned, especially the "Billy Bob" one; you've already cut the tattoo content down, and what is there on it is fine. Flyer22 (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

—I read Betty Logan's comment in an archive. That's why I like my bit about how her beauty has affected her career. There aren't as many RS on this as you would imagine; many books about her borrow from Wiki.
—I don't think how society's tastes have changed is particularly relevant to this article, nor would I say is Allure really an authority on that subject. She's still a skinny white woman, just one with brown hair and big lips instead of a nordic type like Christy Brinkley.
—The NYT quote is different from the Empire one in that it doesn't say, "She has the sexiest, most bee-stung lips evah," but notes that they have received a lot of public attention. But it's really only there to fill up the paragraph on her lips and tattoos, and I'm fine with leaving that out altogether as Lotus suggested.
—I think that's where we most differ in opinion; in my view what you want included is trivia, not analysis.
Well let's see if others weigh in, I don't fany going round in circles.Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In the "Societal impact of Jolie's mastectomy in relation to female beauty and femininity" section above, my "03:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)" post, I noted that some of the content from Google Books about Jolie's looks is copied from Wikipedia. As for the rest, I can't agree that "how society's tastes have changed is [not] particularly relevant to this article"; it is particularly relevant since it is commenting on the fact that it was not too long ago that Christie Brinkley, or women that look like her, would have been considered the beauty ideal, but today, the tattooed Jolie is considered that ideal. That is indeed analysis of Jolie's looks, and the source does not have to be what you consider authoritative. None of these sources are authoritative on looks. There is no WP:Reliable source that is authoritative on the looks of a celebrity. The Empire quote notes what are Jolie's most striking physical qualities and ties that into her theater appeal; that is why I consider it a good quote. You don't like how Empire relays the matter; well, paraphrasing is an option. You suggest that I want to include trivia, but, as noted, what is currently in the section is mostly your doing. When expanding that section, I would have only added content that analyzes Jolie's beauty, similar to the Allure "branched out" quote I included, the Empire quote that I included, or the AfterEllen.com content that you included. As you know, after you added the AfterEllen.com content, I briefly expanded it by adding what I feel is a clarification of what that source partly means by "a new development in American pop culture." Otherwise, it seems vague. I reiterate that what I want to include are pieces that explain why Jolie is considered beautiful (which is why I noted how I think the lead-in sentence/lead paragraph should be) and why she is considered the most beautiful woman. Given the notability of Jolie's looks, none of that is trivial, as long as one does not add trivial things about those matters. I would not have added anything about how a single director views Jolie's looks, even if that director is Clint Eastwood. In my opinion, I always see what should be added regarding Jolie's notability, like I did regarding the incest aspect noted in the In the media section discussion above, and you sometimes overlook what should be added regarding Jolie's notability. For example, if you don't want the section to mention anything about her tattoos, that is another notable part of her physical appearance that will be missing from that section. If it's more so that you don't think any of her tattoos should be specifically mentioned, well, I simply don't agree. A few examples of her tattoos, given the context, is wholly appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is my proposed content:

Second proposed content

Jolie has frequently attracted media attention for her physical appearance—particularly her full lips, eyes, and many tattoos. Her most recognizable physical feature are her lips, of which The New York Times compared to the recognizability of Kirk Douglas's chin and Bette Davis's eyes in their heydays, adding that Jolie's lips "gripped the public imagination." Of her estimated 17 tattoos, she has the Latin proverb "quod me nutrit me destruit" (what nourishes me destroys me), the Tennessee Williams quote "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages," a Buddhist prayer of protection, a twelve-inch tiger, and geographical coordinates indicating the birthplaces of her children. Over time, she has covered or lasered several of her tattoos, including "Billy Bob", the name of her second husband. Many media outlets, such as Vogue, Vanity Fair, Esquire and FHM, have cited Jolie as the world's most beautiful or sexiest woman, often based on public polls, with Jolie placing far ahead of other celebrity women. In a 2011 public poll of 2,000 Americans conducted by Allure, she was voted "the celebrity that most represents the physical ideal." Allure credited society with having "branched out beyond the Barbie-doll ideal and embraced something quite different." Of her sex appeal and subsequent sex symbol status, AfterEllen considered the fact that so many women publicly expressed their attraction to Jolie a new development in American pop culture, adding that "there are many beautiful women in Hollywood, and few generate the same kind of overwhelming interest across genders and sexual orientations that she does." On a professional level, some of Jolie's most commercially successful films, including Tomb Raider (2001) and Beowulf (2007), overtly relied at least in part on her sex appeal. Empire cited her "pneumatic figure", "feline eyes" and lips as "unimprovable" physical attributes that helped her appeal to cinema audiences. In other ways, her appearance has been perceived as a professional hindrance: Salon wrote that Jolie's sexuality has limited her in the types of roles she can be cast in, rendering her unconvincing in many conventional women's roles, while Clint Eastwood, who directed her Oscar-nominated performance in Changeling (2008), opined that her beauty often harmed her credibility with audiences. In 2013, subsequent to her double mastectomy, Jolie's looks again became the subject of significant public discourse, with Time stating that her decision to go through with the surgery had impacted the public's perception, adding that Jolie had "long been a symbol of the feminine ideal," and that through her frank discussion of her surgery, "the most stunning woman in the world redefined beauty."

As you can see in my proposal, I retained the topic sentence. I moved the Empire text to an area that is more relevant in my proposed content, and partly paraphrased it. I partly paraphrased the The New York Times quote, mainly so that it is no longer at odds with MOS:QUOTE. I retained the tattoos information, per what I stated above; that information also fits better to me in that first paragraph. I summarized the most beautiful/sexiest accolades, including the media/public comparing her to other celebrity women, while specifically mentioning one of the polls. Other women have been named "most beautiful" or "sexiest," but what makes Jolie's case notable is that she has consistently ranked ahead of all of the other celebrity women, receiving substantial media attention for it, which is something we should be clear about. Not downplay her accolades in that regard. And if the Public profile section can validly mention polls, the Appearance section can mention one or more polls. Similarly goes for the Public profile section having three paragraphs. After all, Jolie's looks have significantly contributed to her fame, likely more than anything else has. You and I have disagreed on what extent her looks have influenced her fame, but, as shown above, Betty Logan has expressed a mindset similar to mine in that regard. I chose the Allure poll because of the number of participants and because "the celebrity that most represents the physical ideal" piece very much aids the topic of Jolie's beauty in comparison to others and in its own right. I kept "[the public having] branched out beyond the Barbie-doll ideal and embraced something quite different" part, per what I stated above. I removed the "Beautiful at Every Age" piece. I retained your information about the negative impacts of Jolie's beauty, per above. I removed the word natural from "sex appeal" because it seemed a bit POV. I thought about removing the Clint Eastwood part, but I decided that it's fine to keep it. The section did not feel right ending on Eastwood's commentary, however, so I ended it with the Time commentary, but framed the Time commentary in a slightly different way that I feel helps sufficiently close out the section. If it's thought that the Time piece doesn't fit in that paragraph because of the "On a professional level" part, we can remove the "On a professional level" part, but the Time piece fits fine there, in my opinion. Also, the idea of having the Time piece in this section has grown on me; I now think it fits better in this section than in the Cancer prevention treatment section. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and applied the changes, which I think is a decent compromise between what I want and what you want for the section. My goal for the section, besides having it flow well, is to definitely have it formatted to be clear on the notability and impact of Jolie's looks, which it currently is. It should not come across as a garden-variety section about a celebrity's looks; for example, it shouldn't look similar to Katy Perry's Public image section. That article is also WP:Featured, by the way. The changes I made to Jolie's Appearance section are mostly the same as my above proposal. Regarding the exceptions: I added "People" to the "Many media outlets" line. I changed "AfterEllen considered the fact that" to "AfterEllen considered that." I added "Some" for the WP:CITEBUNDLE lead sentence, and removed the Allure source from the bundle since I've cited that outside of the bundle. I removed "On a professional level," and tweaked the Time piece. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Followup edit here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: I know that a lot of people, especially Americans (and I state that as an American), will think that the possessive s attached to the Kirk Douglas and Bette Davis names is wrong (such confusion has happened many times on Wikipedia, including at the Britney Spears article); but it's not wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, anything you want can stay in, I really don't want to spend any more time on this. Though I am going to take a look at how the presentation can be improved. I see three distinct topics of discussion and prefer it be grouped like that for coherence. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't state that "anything [I] want can stay in"; I'm usually open to people disagreeing with me and often recognize text that improves mine, such as the aforementioned incest text that you improved, but I understand the need to move on. As for presentation, we clearly sometimes see flow issues differently. For example, the current flow is fine to me, but not to you. I'll explain briefly why I like the current flow: I noted before that I think that the topic sentence/topic paragraph is a good opener; I still feel that way, though the time that it spends on the tattoo aspect would flow better if that aspect were shortened. The second paragraph specifically addresses her "most beautiful/sexiest" status; I don't see why those aspects should be separated. And the third paragraph expands on it, but especially notes how these qualities of hers have impacted audiences. I noted above that it feels right to me to have the Time piece placed there; this is because it is a paragraph commenting on public perception even without the Time piece. In my opinion, it fits better there than in the second paragraph, and it ends the section well. The third paragraph does not have to be exclusively about her career. Whatever the case, I am open to you improving the presentation, and reiterate that I want the section to begin and end well. In other words, regarding how the section ends, I don't want it to end with commentary that seems like "And, oh" commentary. Ending with the tattoo commentary the way that you did in your above proposal felt like we were stating, "And, oh, Jolie has tattoos that a lot of people have talked about." Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying I don't mind either way. Wiki has a way of making you think something is Very Important, until you step back for a few days and realize you've been arguing over Angelina Jolie's T&A. Nope. The first paragraph is fine, about the publicity she's received, with discussion of her lips and tattoos tied in. The second paragraph can deal with the effects on her career and pop culture, so I'm moving the Allure bit there. With a bit of streamlining it should fit in one paragraph, so two over all, just like the discussion of her public image. The residual category on her "influence and wealth" can return to where it used to be. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguing over Jolie's tits and ass? LOL. That's exactly what we've been doing. If only my brothers saw me now. As for your latest changes to the section, seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, I prefer the material split into two sections, the way you had it before; that offers a cleaner look, flows better, and both of those topics deserve their own sections and can be further expanded. We can always cut excess when expansion happens, but I still prefer that these two topics are split into subsections.

So how about we have the section this way? Splitting the material back into subsections, I left most of the appearance information the way you had it, but I moved the "many media outlets" piece to be part of the second sentence because it flows better there to me; I originally had the names of the magazines in parentheses, but, since it looked like clutter, I removed them; the bundled reference shows the media outlets we are speaking of (enough of them) anyway. Regarding the section leading with "Jolie's public image is also strongly tied to her beauty and sex appeal," I'm fine with that, and was close to adding that as the lead sentence before you added it...since it fits well coming before the "She has frequently attracted media attention for her physical appearance" line. I removed "also" as unneeded, however. I know that you removed the "particularly her full lips, eyes, and many tattoos" part, but I want to keep that as I think it is better to note more than just her lips in that paragraph, and that keeping the content helps ease into the tattoo information. We don't need the "Interviewers have often addressed her estimated 17 tattoos" piece, but a part of me is flattered that you keep holding onto that; by that, I mean that it's a variation of the wording I used for a topic sentence in the old version. I also split up the "Professionally" content from the "Beyond her career" content because it flows better to have them as separate paragraphs. Why don't you like the "there are many beautiful women in Hollywood, and few generate the same kind of overwhelming interest across genders and sexual orientations that she does" AfterEllen piece, though? That piece is not redundant to me, since it emphasizes her sex appeal more broadly. Flyer22 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Followup edit here, where I noted why I clarified the sexuality part. As for the Time part, I changed that because I was tempted to add a comma to your version of it, and I prefer the reword that I came up with in that moment; "beauty" is also clearer than "esthetics." Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with mentioning the "most beautiful" stuff first, before the lips/tattoos, I agree it fits well with the publicity sentence. BUT in that case we can't keep the "lips, eyes, tattoos" part there, cause that sentence becomes a big mess, it's trying to say too much. I don't agree with removing the magazines who called her that, huge detail is not necessary but we need to mention a few. Before others think we're edit-warring, let me edit it here:

"Jolie's public image is strongly tied to her beauty and sex appeal.[220] She has frequently attracted publicity for her physical appearance: media outlets including X, X, and X have cited her as the world's most beautiful woman, while others like X, X, and X have named her the sexiest woman alive, often based on public polls in which she at times placed far ahead of other celebrity women.[6] Her most recognizable physical features are her many tattoos, eyes, and particularly her full lips, which The New York Times considered as defining a feature as Kirk Douglas's chin or Bette Davis's eyes.[221] Among her estimated 17 tattoos are the Latin proverb "quod me nutrit me destruit" (what nourishes me destroys me), the Tennessee Williams quote "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages," a Buddhist prayer of protection,[223] a twelve-inch tiger, and geographical coordinates indicating the birthplaces of her children.[222] Over time, she has covered or lasered several of her tattoos, including "Billy Bob", the name of her second husband.[223]"

I don't see the need for splitting the career and culture stuff into two; together it's more or less the same size as the other paragraphs, instead of two little ones. There's nothing else to say about her career that I can think of, and if other cultural stuff needs to be added in the future, it can be reworked then. Two paragraphs for each topic seems fair to me. So I prefer if we restore it to the way it always was.

I like the quote, I just don't think it adds anything new. My paraphrase says "Many women, gay and straight, say they find her sexy" and then the quote says "She is sexy to everyone, men, women, gay, straight." The lesbian appeal is the notable thing and supposedly a new cultural development, being sexy to men not so much. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I forgot about the Clint Eastwood comment (halp my brain), I can re-add that and then the career stuff can be a separate paragraph, so more or less three for each topic. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ] : I think that it's clear to others that we are working together instead of WP:Edit warring. As you've no doubt seen, I made other tweaks...here. I also figured that we should perhaps name a few of the magazines. Let's go with your new proposal for the first paragraph in the Appearance section. But regarding the "in which she at times placed far ahead of other celebrity women" part, I think that "at times" should be "commonly." The "at times" wording is too weak in this case.

When you state "I don't see the need for splitting the career and culture stuff into two," do you mean the subsections or the "Professionally" and "Beyond her career" paragraphs? If you mean the sections, I still prefer that content be split into two sections. Like I stated, it looks cleaner and flows better that way to me. Also, when you had it in one section, minus the subsections, it was five paragraphs; those paragraphs jump back and forth between the topic of Jolie's media standing/power and her beauty/sex appeal. Again, I prefer that content be in two separate subsections. If it was a little bit of content and violated MOS:Paragraphs by being divided into subsections, then I would be fine with it not having subsections. If you mean the paragraphs, I also prefer that those remain divided. They are not ridiculously small; they are decent-sized paragraphs. When put together, they make a slightly big paragraph.

I figured that the obviousness of men finding Jolie sexually attractive made you discard the "few generate the same kind of overwhelming interest across genders and sexual orientations that she does" part, but I still feel that it adds a contextual emphasis on Jolie's attractiveness. That stated, I'm not going to press to re-add it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And, oh...I don't mind if we include or exclude the Clint Eastwood comment. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've readded both the Eastwood and AfterEllen stuff. I just meant that if the career paragraph is longer (not so small relative to the others) it won't give me eye twitches, and now it looks good to me. So I like how the whole section is now, I hope you agree. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I mostly like how the whole section is now with your latest edit. I state "mostly" because the "often based on public polls in which she places far ahead of other celebrity women" part in that edit can be taken to mean that it only applies to the "sexiest" accolades, and because I'm unsure about the Clint Eastwood piece you added. Since the Eastwood piece states "the most beautiful face on the planet," it's different than the previous Eastwood piece you added. In your "12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)" commentary above, you seemed against adding "the most beautiful face on the planet" commentary. I think that the previous Eastwood piece is more encyclopedic, and that your original re-think on that matter was right. Also, you changed "eyes" to "blue-green eyes"; we should probably stick to "eyes" since, even if the "blue-green eyes" bit is covered by a WP:Reliable source, it's certain that some WP:Reliable sources simply state that she has blue eyes. A few WP:Reliable sources might even state she has green eyes. Just noting "eyes" also feels more encyclopedic to me. So I made this edit, which moves the polls commentary and removes the "blue-green" part. With that edit, one can argue that the "online polls" part seems to only be referring to the "most beautiful" aspect; but if one doesn't think that "online beauty polls" covers sexiness, we can change it to "online physical attractiveness polls," "online attractiveness polls" or "polls gauging attractiveness." As for anything else... In this edit, I added commas. And on a similar minor note: Does the "while others like Esquire, FHM, and Empire have" part flow better with a comma before the word like and after the word Empire, or is having a comma in those spots overkill regarding use of commas? And should "like" be "such as," or does it flow better as "such as"? Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your change is not grammatically correct; now the media outlets are placing in polls. You can split the sentence before the media outlets, or revert and add "in both cases" before "often". I like the Eastwood bit for now, maybe I'll change my mind later. "Such as" works too, I wouldn't add commas there or before "including" but I'm not a coma expert. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

My "polls" change didn't sound right to me when I made it, and I did consider splitting the content at that time, but I found that, to me, it threw the flow off. I've taken a shot at the text in two different ways since then, seen here and here. Before making that second edit, I considered several different ways to word the content, including "Jolie's public image is strongly tied to her beauty and sex appeal, and she has frequently attracted publicity for her physical appearance, often placing significantly ahead of other celebrity women in online beauty polls." and "Jolie's public image is strongly tied to her beauty and sex appeal, and she has attracted substantial publicity for her physical appearance." I obviously didn't go with those options; those phrasings, when made into one sentence, seem a bit redundant since "strongly tied to her beauty and sex appeal" implies "substantial publicity for her physical appearance." Separately, though, they clarify the points better. Regarding reverting and going with "in both cases often based on public polls in which she places far ahead of other celebrity women," I think it's cleaner and clearer to state "Both titles have often been based on public polls in which Jolie places far ahead of other celebrity women." So I went with that. By "cleaner," I mean that it's better not tagged onto the previous sentence, since it makes that sentence come across as too long. And by "clearer," I mean that it clarifies what "both cases" is (meaning "both titles"). As for the comma before the word including and after the word Vanity Fair, those commas fit; it often bothers me when the word including is used in such a way without commas. I went with "such as," but have yet to add commas before the words such as and after the word Empire. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We could also use a semicolon before the "while others such as" part, and cut "while"; this would keep the use of commas with regard to the words such as and Empire from seeming like comma overkill. But I don't mind much if we leave that text as it currently is. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you added this bit about people getting plastic surgery to mimic Jolie's features; I also thought about adding content on that matter. Anyway, like you, I am pleased with how the section is now, despite my quibbles. Flyer22 (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding another quibble, or maybe not a quibble, do you think that we should add the word perceived in front of "beauty" for the "Jolie's public image is strongly tied to her beauty and sex appeal." sentence? I noticed that word in your initial proposal above, and that you removed it when you added the sentence. It might be better to err on the side of caution by adding it, since there will always be someone who states that Wikipedia should be objective on such matters, no matter how many WP:Reliable sources support it. Of course, we don't have to, and shouldn't, add "perceived" in front of every instance of "beauty" and "sex appeal" in the section. Just the one time will suffice. We could also word the initial sentence as "Jolie's public image is strongly tied to her physical appearance:", and let the rest of the text mention "beautiful," "beauty" or "sex appeal," as it currently does, without any addition of "perceived." Clearly, in either case, we can drop the "She has attracted substantial publicity for her physical appearance:" part; so I'll go ahead and remove that.

And regarding Brad Pitt's beauty/sex appeal, I meant it about leaving most of that text for you to structure and expand if you take it on. Flyer22 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree, it would seem more impartial. There's also "status as a sex symbol" and "sex appeal", those are fine in the presented context of her career. Others are sourced quotes. Except "Jolie's beauty", I'm changing that to "appearance". Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

With this latest tweak you made, then I say we can call it a day on the section. We can always improve it, but I mean that I'm fine with leaving it as it is now. We seem to be perfectionists of a sort, but I'm ready to put away my nitpicking tools on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In the media section

I started this section so that we can discuss the recent changes being made to the section, instead of commenting about it in the #Societal impact of Jolie's mastectomy in relation to female beauty and femininity section above.

With this edit, Prayer for the wild at heart, you stated, "expanded wild child image; rm incest rumor (only leaving things she admitted to); add quote about he[r] outspokenness)." Hmm, regarding the incest allegation, I'm thinking that it should remain since it was such a huge rumor, and since some people still believe it, and especially since Jolie responded to it. That section in the Angelina Jolie article gives Jolie a voice on the matter. Regarding the "her unconventional sex life, particularly her bisexual affairs and her interest in sadomasochism" part, I think that flowed better as "She openly discussed her love life, including her bisexuality and her interest in BDSM." I believe that the previous flowed better because one of the things I've learned from editing Wikipedia sexual topics is that people can take offense to the wording "unconventional sex life" (even if the sexual acts were or are unconventional) and because Jolie has stated that she is bisexual, not that she simply had bisexual affairs. And besides, what bisexual affairs did she have other than with Jenny Shimizu? The section does not say. There is also the point that "affair" is too tied up in "cheating on a spouse."

I believe that the Public profile section should begin with the topic sentence that is currently the third paragraph: "Jolie's recognizability, influence, and wealth are extensively documented." So I'll move that up.

Regarding your edits to the appearance material (for example, here), I prefer the previous lead-in material, as I think we should begin with a topic sentence for that section. So I will tweak that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer, I think you made some of these comments while I was still editing. I'm done now, so maybe you could read the material and bold the things that you still want me to change/discuss. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you've already made the changes. Cool. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with your changes to the section, and, as you know, I made minor or small changes to it primarily based on what I stated above (seen here and here). The only thing left is my query above regarding the prominent incest rumor; that kiss with her brother at the Academy Awards got a lot of people talking about her, so much so that all the gossip about it is no doubt why she commented on it. If the rumor were not so prominent and had she not commented on it, I wouldn't care that it remains excluded from the article.

On a side note: As noted in the "Societal impact of Jolie's mastectomy in relation to female beauty and femininity" section above, I would rather that you re-add the societal impact information that you cut from that section. Flyer22 (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, while editing that section, I think it's the first time I realized that your username likely has some relation to Jolie; you know, since "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" is one of her tattoos. Flyer22 (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I considered the MOS:QUOTE rule about linking when I saw that you'd linked Kirk Douglas and Bette Davis, but I left the links alone because the linking in this case can be considered an exception, and I didn't feel like thinking of a way to mention those names outside of quotes. Flyer22 (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Here, you readded the incest accusation that she responded to. Thanks for reconsidering that matter.

Regarding this, this and this commentary we've made on the People magazine's "Beautiful at Every Age" list, I do understand what you mean about restricting the paragraph to "most beautiful" and "ideal" commentary, but, like I stated, I added that material because age is a major aspect of how physical attractiveness is perceived, and that content addresses the opinion that Jolie will be beautiful in any year. It's pretty much stating, "Hey, we don't need to poll her looks every year or few years because she'll still be beautiful any year from now." We can also reword the content so that it doesn't state "and People named her one of 2012's Most Beautiful at Every Age," but rather "and People remarked that she is beautiful at every age in a 2012 article," or "and, in 2012, People remarked that she is beautiful at every age," or something like that. And, in my opinion, that portion fits better in that paragraph, after the 2011 Allure "most represents the physical ideal" piece than anywhere else in that section. This is because it talks about beauty, like the rest of that paragraph, and 2012 chronologically follows 2011. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you, but to explain my side: the section isn't (imo) about the fact that Jolie is beautiful, or will be beautiful in the future, or whatever. Being beautiful is not notable for an actress. What makes it relevant for this encyclopedia is that she is consistently called THE most beautiful, sexy, stunning, perfect, ideal, etc. Being ONE of People's Beautiful At Every Age thing does not belong in that discussion. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The section is about her beauty and sex appeal in addition to her commonly being considered the ideal beauty and sexiest woman; that, and what I stated above, is why I feel that the "Beautiful at Every Age" belongs in that section. Like I stated, I am open to different wording for it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That's where we disagree is what I'm saying. But the placement and wording are fine. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your having tweaked it by adding "as someone who exemplifies that 'true beauty is timeless.'" is something I agree with, since it makes the content flow better. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

With this and this edit (the second edit is actually shortening of the text), I added some of Jolie's commentary on the controversy over her kiss with her brother at the Academy Awards. Like I stated, that kiss was a big story at the time, and it played a big part in how the public saw her during those years; the vast majority of the public didn't even know who she was before that point, and fixated more on the kiss than her Oscar win. So I feel that it's extremely fitting that we include a bit of Jolie's commentary on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I further tweaked it here. I thought about adding that Jolie also felt that she was being supportive, but to summarize that she thought she was being supportive by kissing her brother and/or stating that she was in love with him does not help matters. So I left it ending on the note that he was being supportive, "and she was thankful for the support," which is what she was mainly stressing in the interview on that matter. She does clarify the following: "So when I said, 'I'm so in love with my brother now,' what I was trying to say was, more than getting a fucking award I can't believe how much this person loves me." But that quote doesn't need to be added, and I feel that what I added there on the topic is sufficient. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm going to revert all of this. This much discussion takes the rumor completely out of proportion relative to the other material. They kissed, people gossipped, they denied it, the end. It didn't permanently damage their relationship (they even spoofed the kiss in a photoshoot) or have any lasting impact. We don't go into detail on the knife sex or blood obsession of any of that either, because it would be undue coverage. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Prayer for the wild at heart , it is not WP:Undue, per what I stated above. There are WP:Reliable sources that make it clear that she became widely known after that kiss at the Oscars, and that people focused more on that kiss than on her Oscar win. Of course, we should have something there about what Jolie stated on the matter, not simply that she "denied they were lovers." And we shouldn't use "denied" anyway, per WP:Claim. We can compare sources on the matter to show how much WP:Weight should be given to the matter, and I remain of the opinion that you've given this aspect, which was a huge media deal, too little weight in a section about how the media and public in general perceive her. And, if no one else weighs in it, we can take it to WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

She didn't become widely known because of incest rumors, that's ridiculous. It was a combinaiton of many things, she won an Oscar, Gone in 60 Seconds was her first big hit, and her marriage to Billy Bob Thornton was all over the tabloids. The incest rumor was just one part of the whole "she's crazy" reputation. I stand by my opinion and will revert per BRD. We can ask for a third opinion? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A combination of things does not stop the fact that the Oscar win brought her significantly more fame than she already had and that the general public (not just the tabloids) focused more on the kiss with her brother than on her Oscar win. If she became more well known for her Oscar win, and it was the kiss with her brother instead of her Oscar win that people generally focused on, then it stands to reason that the kiss made her more well known than the Oscar win or at least contributed to her being significantly more well known. Stating that is not ridiculous, whether we use the words "widely known" or "more well known." Like this 2014 The Hollywood Reporter source states, "The defiant wild child of actors Jon Voight and Marcheline Bertrand, Jolie burst onto the scene with her Oscar-winning performance in 1999's Girl, Interrupted. Back then, she was better known for wearing then-husband Billy Bob Thornton's blood in a locket around her neck and kissing her brother at the Oscars." This 2013 Time source states, "Angelina Jolie who, only a dozen years ago, was making headlines for her tattoos, her sexuality and a very intense Oscars-night kiss with her brother." This 2013 The New York Daily News source states under the Oscar picture of Jolie kissing her brother, "Early on Angelina was best known for her creepy kiss with brother James Heaven." This 2012 Digital Spy source states, "Several years before Angelina Jolie became the globe-trekking supermum we know today, she made the headlines on the red carpet in 2000 by kissing her brother James Haven somewhat overzealously. Inappropriate? Well, the media seemed to think so, as this act grabbed more headlines than her victory in the 'Best Supporting Actress' category." There are various other WP:Reliable sources that state that she was mostly known for that kiss or those few things, and/or that people focused on those things more than her Oscar win or acting talent. And yet you had removed any mention of the kiss controversy media attention she received until I suggested that you add it back.

As for "any lasting impact," the In the Media section is for documenting the most significant aspects of Jolie's public persona and how the public perceives her. Nothing there needs to be a "lasting impact" matter, but that WP:Reliable sources are still attributing these parts of Jolie's life as having been what she was mostly known for is certainly a "lasting impact" matter. You think that this suffices for Jolie's commentary on the "kissing her brother at the Oscars" topic; I don't. Simply stating, "Jolie dismissed the rumor as 'pathetic'" hardly explains her mindset at that time or sufficiently captures the impact that this rumor had. I would prefer compromise wording on the matter than seeking out WP:RfC or WP:Third opinion. We can also wait to see if anyone else watching this article/talk page weighs in on it. Then again, I might let the matter go instead of listing source after source to show what I mean. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, "knife sex or blood obsession"? Did you mean a comma between the word knife? Either way, Jolie's fascination or obsession with knives, blood and sex have sufficient or ample WP:Due weight by being addressed in the Early life and family, Relationships and marriages and/or Public profile section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No I meant knife sex, the correct term is knife play. I'm not hip enough for that shit. Anyway you don't have to find more sources, at least not for my sake, you're not telling me anything I didn't already know. Yes it impacted her public image, which is why I was wrong to remove it (I considered it slander since it's unproven gossip) and restored the rumor per your request. Any further info on how she felt about it, or how they support each other, or he likes Oscars and movies or whatever, is — in my opinion — undue. Her hurt feelings/damaged friendship did not impact how the audience saw her. If other people weigh in I will of course yield to consensus. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of knife play (I mentioned above that I edit sexual topics on Wikipedia; not all of them, though); I'm just not used to reading up on knife play or hearing it called "knife sex." As for the content at hand, I don't think that her hurt feelings/damaged friendship with her brother need to have impacted how the public saw her to be mentioned in the section. And with the way she can influence people (one of her notable qualities mentioned in the article), it's likely that the comments she made about that rumor did impact how the public saw her. That stated, I don't mean that all of what I added about it should be added back or that a lot should be added about it. But I do think that the impact of that rumor is lacking context in its current state in the article, especially given what various WP:Reliable sources state about it, and that it currently comes across as a trivial piece -- one of the many rumors that a celebrity is faced with on any given day. As the aforementioned sources I pointed to above show, that's not the case for this particular rumor. My main goal was to give Jolie more of a voice on this aspect of her life that some people still speculate about. Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of collaborashun, I've expanded on the rumor. It's more than I would prefer and probably less than what you would prefer, so we're meeting in the middle. Is this okay with you now? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Collaborashun? LOL!! Anyway, this tidbit is exactly the type of coverage I was going for on that matter, and you relayed it better than I did (I like to think that I would have eventually tweaked it similarly). Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I readded the "dismissed" aspect, since I feel that it adds clarity that she never stated that the rumors are true (followup tweak here). Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to the "Jolie's recognizability, influence, and wealth are extensively documented" lead-in sentence, with or without the "She is among the world's best-known celebrities" part, I still think that it fits fine as the sentence that begins the section. When I first added that sentence, which was last year, before your latest overhaul of the article, it was to add a topic sentence about those matters because the content flowed better that way at the time, and especially after it evolved to this. Today, the whole section is about her recognizability, but I can see how that paragraph is specifically about her recognizability, influence and wealth, which is why that lead-in sentence had originally been attached to that paragraph. Still, that lead-in sentence can also be seen as a statement that comes a bit late, given the second paragraph. So regarding this change you made placing the lead-in sentence at the third paragraph, I made this edit (followup note here), which I think makes the content flow better. We could also remove that lead-in sentence and the "Jolie is among the world's best-known celebrities" part, leaving the third paragraph without any topic sentence, but then the third paragraph would have more of that "redundant to the second paragraph" effect, to me anyway. And by that, I mean that it would leave one to wonder why parts of the second paragraph are not merged with parts of the third paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The way I read it — and wrote it — the first paragraph discusses her "bad girl" image, the second paragraph discusses her transformation into her "mother-humanitarian" image and the resulting impact on how she is perceived, and the third paragraph is a catch-all for stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere (fame, influence, wealth. That's why, imo, your lead-in sentence works so well, it ties those loose facts together. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So do you object to my having moved the aforementioned part about her ability to influence to the "recognizability, influence, and wealth" paragraph? Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I really prefer it in the second para, or even the first like it was, because it's a commentary on how she manipulates her image. The influence Time mentioned is very different. But I won't change it back because, like I wrote above, I do try to be collaborative. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Noting here for talk page documentation that I think you resolved the matter well with this setup. As you know, I wanted all of the Q Score content together, and you've done that, making it flow nicely. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of lead

Since this is an FA I would like to propose a change to the lead. I think it could be structured better. It goes from her acting career to her humanitarian work and back to acting. I would like to separate these topics.

Other than that:

• I don't think her bit part in her father's film as a child is lead material; it was a minute long and a one-off thing. Obviously the lede should mention that she is Jon Voight's daughter, but we could just say that.

• It says she is noted for her work with refugees, which was true in 2006 when that sentence was written, but since then the scope of her work has become much broader; not too long ago she received an honorary damehood for her advocacy against war rape. I would like to at least specify some of her other causes.

• Saying that the media have called her the most beautiful woman and that she has received publicity for it is redundant, probably left over from earlier wordings.

I propose something like this:

Extended content

Angelina Jolie (/dʒoʊˈliː/ joh-LEE born Angelina Jolie Voight; June 4, 1975) is an American actress, director, writer, and producer. She has won an Academy Award, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and three Golden Globe Awards, and has been cited as Hollywood's highest-paid actress. As the daughter of actor Jon Voight, Jolie began her film career with the low-budget production Cyborg 2 (1993), followed by her first leading role in a major film, the cyber-thriller Hackers (1995). She starred in the critically acclaimed biographical television films George Wallace (1997) and Gia (1998), and won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her performance in the drama Girl, Interrupted (1999). Jolie's starring role as the video game heroine Lara Croft in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) established her as a leading Hollywood actress. She continued her successful action-star career with Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005), Wanted (2008), and Salt (2010), and received critical acclaim for her performances in the dramas A Mighty Heart (2007) and Changeling (2008), which earned her a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Actress. Beginning in the 2010s, she expanded her work by directing and producing the wartime dramas In the Land of Blood and Honey (2011) and Unbroken (2014). Her biggest commercial success came with the Disney fantasy Maleficent (2014). In addition to her film career, Jolie is noted for her humanitarian efforts, for which she received a Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award and an honorary damehood of the Order of St Michael and St George (DCMG), among other honors. She promotes various causes, including conservation, education, and anti-sexual violence, and is most noted for her advocacy on behalf of refugees as a Special Envoy for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). As a public figure, Jolie has been named the world's "most beautiful" woman by various media outlets, and her personal life is the subject of wide publicity. Divorced from actors Jonny Lee Miller and Billy Bob Thornton, she is now married to actor Brad Pitt. They have six children together, three of whom were adopted internationally.

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what the current lead looks like. I am fine with implementing all of your bullet-point proposals for the lead (though I do question removing mention of her film debut), but I prefer the flow (organization) of the current lead. It starts out establishing different ways that Jolie is notable, and then it doesn't move into the specifics of her film career until the second paragraph. And, of course, the final paragraph addresses publicity in particular (including her personal life), similar to how the lower part of the article saves that material for last. Four-paragraph leads (which are the ideal limit, per WP:Lead) are perfectly understandable for articles of this size, so I don't see a need to cut the lead to three paragraphs. I don't feel strongly on this matter either way, but, like I mentioned, I prefer the flow (organization) of the current lead.

Krimuk90, who also watches this article, has WP:FA and WP:GA celebrity articles, and helped write the current lead. So, Krimuk90, what do you think of Prayer for the wild at heart's lead proposals? Flyer22 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I like Prayer's version. It's good, though I feel mentioning her acting debut would be a good idea, even though it was small role. Cheers! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for commenting. Since Flyer doesn't feel strongly about it, I will go ahead and make the change. But per both your comments I will keep the Looking to Get Out cameo. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Angel of Refugees

Angelina Jolie was appointed as the Goodwill Ambassador for UNHCR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.96.238.31 (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)