Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Societal impact of Jolie's mastectomy in relation to female beauty and femininity

What I recently stated here in the edit history reminded me of other discussions that have been had at this talk page about how the media and the general public perceives Jolie's looks, including the discussion about the societal impact of her mastectomy with regard to female beauty and femininity. A lot of the media and general public were talking about this at the time. And for where we discussed it, see Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10#Mastectomy, again. And yet...there still is nothing about these aspects in the Cancer prevention treatment section as it currently is. Prayer for the wild at heart and HelenOnline, given what the three of us stated in the "Mastectomy, again" discussion in 2013, do one or both of you mind finally adding something to the section in question about Jolie's mastectomy in relation to female beauty and femininity? Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The aforementioned aspects apparently were never added to the section. This is what the section looked like at the time (14:37, 20 May 2013‎), after we seemed to be in agreement to include some portion of the following from Time magazine: "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." Flyer22 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, I've been working on an update of the article, like I did a few years ago. I don't have my Word file right now but I know I added at least a brief mention of that to the media section, because I rewrote the discussion of her most beautiful/sex symbol status. (Of course others are free to write about this in the meantime.) Btw, your memory is impressive. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Prayer for the wild at heart. I still feel that it would be better to include that content in the section that talks about her cancer prevention treatment, but I can also see how it would fit in the In the Media section since that section talks about her looks. Regarding your rewrite of the discussion about her beauty, is it going to be similar to what Betty Logan suggested (seen here)? Before you rewrite the most beautiful/sex symbol content, will you post your version to the talk page so that we can discuss it? There may be aspects that I or others feel that we should retain, cut, or add. As for my memory, I used to state on Wikipedia that I have a photographic memory, but, given debate about the topic of having a photographic memory, I don't state that anymore; still, my memory is similar to that debated ability. Flyer22 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes to the In the Media section so far. My initial reaction to you splitting the section into subsections was that the split is unneeded; but since the content in those sections is likely to be expanded, and since the headings help people find the material they be looking for, I'm fine with the split. As you can see here, here and here, I tweaked it a little. Like I stated in that first edit summary: "[P]eople have paid more attention to her looks minus the tattoos. The tattoos are not the main focus." The tattoos are a big aspect, but, if looking at many of the articles about Jolie's looks, one can see that the media and general public focus more on her face, and sometimes especially her lips, or her body as a whole (without noting her tattoos). The tattoos were more a topic of discussion during her Billy Bob Thorton days, when she was still considered "wild and crazy." Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I expanded a bit here. I might add something from Google Books sources (the WP:Reliable ones that have not copied Wikipedia on this matter). But I might wait to see if you soon do anything with the section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Cancer prevention treatment section, why did you cut away so much of the societal impact content, as seen here? It was not excessive and captured the impact well, except for the aforementioned implication concerning female beauty and how women responded to the matter. I prefer to leave in that content, minus any redundancy. Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I readded the societal impact information, per my "09:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)" comment above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to respond to this, sorry. I very much disagree with re-adding this. Let me explain: the part I originally wrote right after her announcement is only speculation about the possible effects of said announcement. Some experts said Yay, X will happen. Other experts said Crap, Y will happen. Now it's two years later and we don't have to speculate, we KNOW what the effects were. BRCA gene testing increased significantly and appropriately. People didn't run out willy-nilly to get tested, and there's no need to include that experts were worried about that. This is not a newspaper, we can update and remove outdated information. What is your reason to include it? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of WP:NOTNEWS. My reason for including the aforementioned information is what I stated above. I'm fine with you removing the effects speculation material. Well, I won't press to have that information returned. What I was focused on is having the section note that "most medical experts who weighed in publicly agreed that Jolie made the right choice for herself" and that "[h]er decision was met with praise from various public figures, and from health campaigners, who welcomed her raising awareness of the options available to those at risk." In other words, I don't think that the societal impact of Jolie's cancer prevention treatment was emphasized enough in your version. Again, this is a cancer prevention treatment case that got a lot of people talking about gender and beauty, namely what it means to be a woman and to be feminine, with a lot of women praising Jolie for being what they consider brave enough to go through with the surgery, and yet the section did not capture all of that and still does not. Regarding its femininity/beauty aspect, we've compromised by having a small piece about it at the end of the Appearance section. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The testing rates tripled, doubled or otherwise hugely increased across the world. That speaks louder than anything else. But ok, I'll edit your desired parts in. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your latest changes to the section are fine. And I had previously noticed that you additionally made an effort to compromise by adding Jolie's commentary on the surgery with regard to her femininity. Flyer22 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Good. I agree it is better now, with the health campaigners' opinion added in. I'm just annoyed the public figures mentioned are people like Mindy Kaling. ;) Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Prayer for the wild at heart, this content that you removed about her femininity is not in the Appearance section. Not yet anyway. And why remove mention of Jolie primarily getting the surgery for her kids? Flyer22 (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I might be remembering wrong but I think you wanted something included there about her beauty, so I added the quote. Then you agreed that it fits better in the Media section, so I figured the quote could go. We can't keep everything. The children's thing, that was just my interpretation of her op-ed; she says, "Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could." and then later on, "I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer." I'm not sure that passes synth. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I wanted something there about how her surgery impacted public discourse with regard to beauty and femininity. As I noted to you before in the aforementioned Mastectomy, again discussion, there was, because of Jolie's announcement that she had the surgery, a lot of discussion in the general public (including the media) about how female beauty/femininity is associated with breasts. Various WP:Reliable sources spoke of how it is significant that Jolie, who is considered the most beautiful woman in the world, had that surgery and likely threatened her sex appeal. They spoke of the impact that this must be having on women in particular -- that the most beautiful woman in the world states that it's okay to get this surgery. If this information is not going to be in the Cancer prevention treatment section, then it should be in the Appearance section, and I now think that (the latter one) is the better section for it to be placed in. It should be right after the Time piece. Just a bit of it. We can simply work in the line you removed: "I do not feel any less of a woman. I feel empowered that I made a strong choice that in no way diminishes my femininity." We could certainly be a little clearer on how she "redefined beauty."

As for the children aspect: I remember sources relaying that Jolie mainly had the surgery for her children, so that she could live a long life and make sure that her children are not without a mother; she especially connects with that because she lost her mother, a relatively young mother, to cancer. That aspect should go in the Cancer prevention treatment section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'm not personally convinced these things need to be included, but I'm not opposed to them either. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's significantly more relevant to state that she got the surgery for her kids than to state that she got the surgery to inspire women. To state the latter and leave out the former is an oversight, in my opinion. As for the impact bit, we already cover it in the Appearance section, as we should, but, in my opinion, it's currently lacking. Again, I'm not looking for a lot of material on the impact to be added; and I do think that it should remain in that last paragraph and close out the section that way. Flyer22 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the "children" addition. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Name change

Jolie has gone public with her name change (Jolie Pitt). @Dragonzbb11: added it, @Townlake: then reverted because she hasn't made a formal announcement. I guess my question is, is an announcement really required before adding Pitt to the opening sentence?

Official press releases from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office called her Jolie up until at least November (when she was already married), but the one from yesterday calls her Jolie Pitt. Her name card at a press conference yesterday said Jolie Pitt, and the accompanying press release from the London School of Economics did too. The director of LSE called her Jolie Pitt in his speech, and the Archbishop of Canterbury did as well in his speech the day before. These things don't happen without her approval.

Most of the press still calls her Jolie so obviously the common name hasn't (yet) changed.

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for starting this discussion, Prayer. I see both sides of this, but in the absence of consensus for the new name in public coverage, I defer to MOS:IDENTITY. In her most recent professional work, the article subject's directorial turn in "Unbroken," the subject referred to herself as Angelina Jolie. I have no personal preference for either name, but until she herself expresses one -- and I don't think LSE's preference on what to call her qualifies -- I'm inclined to wait to make a change. Townlake (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Edit to add Do you have a source for your statement "Jolie has gone public with her name change"? If yes, I think that settles this discussion quickly. If not, I respectfully ask you to strike and reword that sentence, as it is false. Your following statement "These things don't happen without her approval" is speculative at best. Townlake (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A formal document from the UK government suddenly calling her Jolie Pitt (along with the other institutions/people mentioned) is as much proof as a credit on her next film would be. (Alhough I doubt she will use Jolie Pitt professionally.) I do see your point re: Identity. There's no harm in waiting until she comments on it. And if she doesn't, using just Jolie still isn't wrong. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: in the last week she has used the name Angelina Jolie Pitt in a personal statement for the UN and in a New York Times op-ed, and at least one news outlet (CBS News) has noted the name change. So I think the article change is now appropriate. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Filmmaker as occupation

There have been discussions at WT:FILM which concluded that the term filmmaker should be avoided. For example this can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 41#Walter Hill: director or filmmaker?. To quote User:Lugnuts: "Filmmaker redirects to filmmaking, which seems to be more about film production than film directing. The opening line on the film director article states "A film director is a person who directs the actors and film crew in filmmaking." Being concise is not the main goal of an encyclopedia. Filmmaking is a craft, but it is too ambiguous to use as an occupation. A reader cannot be sure what it means. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

John Jolie-Pitt

John's name is still listed as Shiloh under the children tab, along with his gender being wrong (female instead of male). Would anyone be able to update his information? 68.106.142.149 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10#Changing "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt" name. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The media speak about John as Shiloh, but in fact, he prefers being referred to as John. He is a transgender child, and although not many understand this, he is still a boy. He likes to wear male relating clothes, and Angelina and Bradley are very accepting of it. What can I say about the media though? Not much, just that they need to get their heads screwed on and take John for who he is. TheSilentAvox (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015

Skipper Roberts (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

Dear Wikipedia, Kindly give me the permission to edit the page Angelina Jolie. Please do it.

Yours Sincerely

Guido Gazpacho (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the place to request additional user rights, or request unprotection. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems that they are already autoconfirmed, but just don't like being reverted after adding unsourced claims to this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See the section immediately above this one. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion by Skipper Roberts [1]. Blocked. - NQ (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

Kindly give me the permission to edit the page ANGELINA JOLIE.

Yours sincerely Guido Gazpacho

Guido Gazpacho (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Guido Gazpacho (talk · contribs), kindly give us a reason to take WP:Semi-protection from this page so that you can edit it. Either that, or propose here what you want added to the article or otherwise changed about the article. Or wait until you are WP:Autoconfirmed. Flyer22 (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems that they are already autoconfirmed, but just don't like being reverted after adding unsourced claims to this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, look at the editor's contributions. After making the "11:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)" post, Guido Gazpacho only had seven edits. By the time that Guido Gazpacho made this edit that you reverted, Guido Gazpacho had enough edits to be WP:Autoconfirmed. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay. They still aren't going to get edits like that kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The "sex in the limousine" aspect of what Guido Gazpacho added is true (I remember seeing Jolie noting that live on E! a little after it happened), but that content does not need to be in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's an MTV video link to that matter, and it shows that it was actually Billy Bob noting it beside Jolie, and that it was rather an MTV exclusive (E! reported on it a lot). Flyer22 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (I will remake this page with the name of Angelina Jolie Pitt) --Kaveri Krishnan Kukku (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Kaveri Krishnan Kukku, unless you are talking about your blanking of the article and addition and removal of the deletion prod, I don't know what you are talking about. But I do know that you need to be indefinitely WP:Blocked from editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Shiloh< John

Is John identifies as male, we should list it as such. Misgendering is not okay just because he's a child.184.76.211.156 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP; see Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10#Changing "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt" name. Also consider reading the Gender identity disorder in children and Gender variance articles I pointed to in that discussion. Childhood gender nonconformity as well. We don't know if Shiloh is definitively transgender. Furthermore, it's not uncommon for a child to be gender nonconforming and "grow out of" wanting to be the opposite gender. Ruby Rose is a prime example of that (well, except for the fact that she identifies as genderfluid as an adult). Then again, if you are very familiar with these topics, you know that childhood gender nonconformity does not always mean that the child will always be gender nonconforming. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Problems with that mindset aside, if the names of Angelina's other children are listed, use of the name John deserves at least a mention (and here is most appropriate, since "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt" redirects to this article under Children). 2601:C6:4100:3311:5510:FB21:C1D8:183A (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

my daughter's mentor

Hello, my name is RUTH MAKAMA. I am a Police officer as a fingerprint expert in Abuja Nigeria Africa. I have a daughter by name QUEENETTEFERAND CHERISH ABU 13 years of age. Living with me in Nigeria. She is about to finish her O level as in Secondary School. Pls mam, She always disturb me about u that she want to join u in acting by u mentoring her. pls ma, my daughter loves acting and she loves how u always act. kindly give her room for trial. pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Thanks her mom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.213.165 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Update Filmography Section

Suggestion: Can the filmography section title be updated to 'Selected Filmography' or 'Filmography Highlights' to reflect that her full Filmography is on a separate page and the listed films are not extensive. It is also not clear what the criteria is for the films that are listed. Kitty4777 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I am curious as to the selection process as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My selection was based on box office success and major award recognition. The films listed are those that grossed over $150 million and/or received Oscar, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG and Emmy wins/nominations. Plus her first major film. Voice roles and sequels are excluded. Maybe others can think of better, more objective criteria. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I personally think it would be more appropriate to include a link to Angelina Jolie filmography in "see also" and not have a section. It's very odd to arbitrarily list some of her work and not all of it. Even more odd to exclude films such as Kung Fu Panda that are clearly among her biggest roles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Since people will be looking for the Filmography section when they come to this article, and might not think to look to the See also section for it, I think it would be better to write up a summary for the Filmography section while maintaining the link to the Angelina Jolie filmography article. This is per WP:Summary style. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the "Career" sections essentially a prose summary of her filmography? That would be redundant. You do bring up a good point, though, that many people who come to this article are looking for her filmography not knowing she has a separate article for it. Would it be reasonable to list all of her film/TV credits, including non-acting roles, without details such as character, box office, and directors that are saved for the main article? An extended version of the bullet points already in the article. I realize that would be somewhat lengthy, but it makes more sense (to me, anyway) than only including a small portion of her roles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

While typing my reply to you, I also thought about the fact that "the 'Career sections [are] essentially a prose summary of her filmography," but the way that the Filmography section is has bothered me for sometime and I see my suggestion as a better suggestion than including a selected list or locating the link in the See also section. For Wikipedia actor/actress articles, it's become standard practice to simply have the Filmography section consist of a link to the main filmography article, and I don't see a need to have this article do differently in that regard. Yes WP:Summary style and MOS:Paragraphs are clear about having an appropriate amount of material in a section. But WP:Ignore all rules is also clear. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

How about this? –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I was already reverted by Betty Logan, I'd like to invite her to this discussion and ask how the reverted edit constitutes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not support adding a full filmography as in this edit. It is completely unnecessary IMO and redundant when a dedicated filmography article already exists. The question remains as to what to do with the section? Personally I would be okay with completely removing the abridged filmography and just having a link to the main article, but I appreciate why some editors prefer to have a condensed list of her major films in this article. However, adding a full list of her film roles undermines the point of having a dedicated filmography article: we have a full list somewhere else so we don't need a full one here! There are several options as I see them: i) retain the status quo limiting the list to career highlights; ii) remove the abridged list completely; iii) merge the tables at Angelina Jolie filmography back into this article. The filmography article isn't so big as to make a merge prohibitive so editors need to decide what they want to do: is the topic best served by compartmentalising her biography and filmography, or would it be better to just have a single article covering everything? Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Having a bulleted list of all of her films doesn't fulfill the same purpose as the filmography article, though, as her roles (actress, producer, director) were not mentioned and the extra details from the tables there (director, box office, etc.) were not included. But I would not be opposed to merging the filmography article back here. The lead section largely repeats information from the "Career" sections here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am struggling to see what purpose having two lists does fulfil. If people want a list of the films they can just click the filmography link. The same with the awards table too. Surely the whole point of creating sub-articles is so we don't have to include them here? There are two approaches to article writing: you can have a comprehensive article which has everying and is a one-stop shop, but if the tables/lists are large the article risks becoming unfocused. The other approach is to compartmentalise and create sub-articles for the lists and tables; with this approach what you gain in focus you lose in comprehensiveness, since readers may have to visit other articles to get the information they want. Both of them are valid approaches but I do think this article needs to fully commit to one or the other because it is somewhat silly to have a bit of a list or a bit of table here and the rest somewhere else. Personally I would just remove both the awards table and the filmography list since the sub-articles already exist but ultimately I am not a principal editor on this article so I defer to those who are. Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point that the edit you reverted does not contain all of the information found at Angelina Jolie filmography. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is the point. Why do we need a full list and a bit of a list? Either have a full list at a sub-article or have the full table in this article. We don't need two lists. Betty Logan (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Noting here that SNUGGUMS moved the filmography link to the See also section. Per what I stated above, I don't like that option. But, as also noted above, I'm not keen on having a Filmography section that only links to the Filmography article. Perhaps place the filmography link at the top of the Career section? Maybe place it right underneath the 1991–97: Early work subsection, since placing it immediately under the Career section might cause it to be overlooked from the table of contents if editors simply click on the 1991–97: Early work subsection? Flyer22 (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a good suggestion. I agree the link needs to be more prominent in the article, where readers would normally look for a list of her films. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the 1991–97 subsection. No problems with that placement. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

UGH.

Why must one search for a link to the filmography? This is frustrating and annoying. Why can't there be a (admittedly brief) "Filmography" section, with the link to the main article? That way it shows up in the TOC. Many, if not most, people accessing the Jolie page will have an interest in her filmog and they shouldn't have to do a text search just to find the link to it. A change is needed. - ^theWOLFchild 05:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: For more on what Thewolfchild means, see this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink). Flyer22 (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that Flyer. People looking at that article will also see that a 'selected filmog' was added, greatly improving the article in content, accessibility and user-ability. Many actor bio pages with split off filmogs have either a retained a selected filmog or a section header with the link to the main filmog making it easier to find. I see no reason why we can't do one or the other here. It would only improve this article. - ^theWOLFchild 00:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As you can see above, both options were vetoed for violating some type of guideline. Wiki has an awful lot of those. But for what it's worth I support your edit. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't see any specific policy mentioned that outright prohibited any of the proposed options. I just saw varying opinions. The fact is that of the two options I suggested, either adding a 'selected filmog' or simply adding a section header with a link to the main filmog (so that it can be readily found in the TOC) are both found in plenty of actor bio pages across wp. I also see that BettyLogan was open to simply merging the main filmography back into this page. I would be all for that as well. As far as I know, filmogs should only be split off when it's absolutely necessary, as in when both the main page and the filmog table are so large, that having them together makes the article to unwieldy and slow to load. I don't think that would be the case here.

As I see it, we have four (4) choices;

• 1: Re-merge the main filmography table back into this page and into the "Filmography" section.
• 2: Add a 'selected filmography' to the "Filmography" section. We could have discussion to determine which films to include.
• 3: Leave the article the way it now, with a section header for "Filmography" containing only the link to the main page (making it easy to find in the TOC)
• 4: remove the "Filmography" section altogether, as was done a few days ago, and go back to burying the link to the main filmog somewhere within the 'Career' section, so no one can find it (unless they do a text search to find where it's hidden).

The first 3 are listed in my order of preference, any of the 3 is fine with me. Number 4, for me at least, is a non-starter. I'm sure we can all work out something to improve the article. - ^theWOLFchild 04:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• In the discussion above it is important to note I was opposing a specific version of a selected filmography, which I felt was becoming too bloated and making the satellite article redundant. My view is that if editors want the bulk of the content back in the article then why not just merge the content back in fully? Personally I have always felt that "selected" filmographies are too much of a compromise, and settled upon by editors who don't want to commit fully one way or the other, but I do not formally oppose them if the correct balance can be obtained (i.e. how much do we have in and how much do we leave out?) and a neutral criteria can be achieved. That said, if the decision is taken to spin the filmography out of the article, I think it is crucial that there is a prominent link to the filmography. This could be done via an article hatnote, but also the infobox provides a link for this type of thing which you can see in an a test edit I made here. Whatever approach is taken it should be made easy to find a list of her films. Betty Logan (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Betty, I completely agree with you on each and every point you have just made. As it stands right now, after Flyer's last edit, the Filmography is quite visible and easily accessible via the TOC, which addresses the immediate concerns that I at least had. So, afaic, there is no urgent need to make any more changes in regards this issue. I will check in from time to time to see if there is any further discussion and/or proposed changes on the matter. Thanks everyone. - ^theWOLFchild 08:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

For possible future reference

Jolie is next expected to direct Africa, about Kenyan conservationist Richard Leakey's fight against the illegal ivory trade.

References

Awards and nominations section

Why is there a redundant table in the section when there is a linked main article? Lapadite (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So that there is actually something there as opposed to simply a link. I take it that it's the section's way of applying WP:Summary style. The main article for the awards and nominations has a lot more material. What is in the section is just a snippet of it, and is therefore barely redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, but another table is redundant imo. Why not not prose instead, briefly summarizing the main article (similar to its lead)? Lapadite (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?

Before Monochrome Monitor's edit, Angelina Jolie was in Category:Top-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles. Monochrome Monitor placed her in Category:Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles, which includes actors like Drake Bell. Jolie is far above that level of fame, popularity, respectability and career work. With this edit, I reverted Monochrome Monitor, stating, "As a biography, I'd rate her high (not top). Film aspect? Mid. But this field isn't working. So I'll revert and remove it." I saw that the field is working, and so I placed her in Category:High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles with this edit. So which category is she best suited for, and why? How do we judge this for her or other actors? Are we basing this on how well-received their acting career has been? On how famous and/or respected they are? On what? Monochrome Monitor has been going around making these changes to actor articles and to film articles; for example, see this edit at Talk:Avatar (2009 film) and the fix afterward by Frietjes. And with this edit at Talk:Dustin Hoffman, Monochrome Monitor stated, "stop adding actors you like to this category. it needs to be free of recentivism. People on AFI's list of stars, influential directors, and anyone on 'greatest X of X' list will count." By contrast to Monochrome Monitor's categorization of Jolie, he placed Brad Pitt in Category:High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles. Why Pitt and not Jolie? I'll alert WP:Film to this matter for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Alerted WP:Film here and two other pages here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Did I rate her mid? I meant to do high. I agree with you.--Monochrome_Monitor 05:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

My rating system is not perfect. I do think it's better than what we had before, where Casablanca was labeled low importance and Toy Story was high importance. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the americans mentioned in top-importance bio should be high-importance american film, with the exception of Griffith and Hitchcock. And maybe Orson Welles. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – Grading topics on the importance scale is highly subjective by nature. Interestingly, WP:FILM doesn't have any guidelines on how to handle this, but WP:ACTOR does here. According to the chart, it would seem Jolie qualifies as high importance. The chart is based off of Wikipedia's outline for priority assessments, though in my opinion, WP:ACTOR made a very loose interpretation of the scale which will lead to some confusion. Perhaps a discussion should take place there to add more detail that helps clarify where actors/actresses ultimately land. International recognition and historical significance are big factors, but ultimately how important the subject is to the field (in this case, acting) should trump both. Personally I think she's closer to mid than high when taking that into account, similar to say Alec Baldwin. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to compromise, all I knew is she wasn't top importance. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI...Just a reminder, the Film project no longer uses the |importance= parameter, and does not cover biography articles. Those articles are covered by adding |filmbio-work-group=yes to {{WikiProject Biography}} instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - according to WP:ACTOR's assessment, I'd rate Jolie "high" on the project, but then I'd also argue Jolie is "extremely notable to the common person" (something which I don't think can be said of certain individuals in the "top" category. I'm not sure what is the criteria exactly for differences in accomplishments/impact/importance between actors in the "high" and "top" categories. For instance, Monochrome changed the priority assessment of Cate Blanchett from top to high, but that is an actor I would consider in the "top" importance in accordance with impact in the industry and the level of accomplishments/recognition received. The "top" category seems skewed almost exclusively toward Old Hollywood. Lapadite (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Top importance to any field of study (not just WP:ACTOR) means that any research in that field would absolutely benefit from the inclusion of material about the subject in question. Is Jolie's contribution to acting so great that it must be considered crucial to any research on the performing arts? Winning an Academy Award was no small feat, but it was for a supporting role. So while an argument can be made for high importance, I think top importance is out of the question. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, per her contribution to her field as generally regarded by RSs and the industry (e.g., accolades, etc), I'd agree with the "high" placement. Lapadite (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=42045&PID=10086013&Tab=reviews&CID=18

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Common name: Jolie or Jolie Pitt

It seems the mainstream media have begun calling her Jolie Pitt with the release of her new film. I know People (the unofficial Jolie-Pitt mouthpiece) and The Hollywood Reporter have consistently done so since she changed her name at the start of the year, but now when I look at google news there's many outlets doing the same, including the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, etc. Other sources still use Jolie.

What does this mean for the article, with regard to WP:COMMONNAME? Should we start calling her Jolie Pitt only in new and future material or change every existing mention of Jolie? Should the article be moved or not? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Angelina Jolie" is her WP:Common name. I don't see how "Angelina Jolie Pitt" is even close to being her common name. And having the article use "Jolie Pitt" throughout is not only unnecessary but can create a confusing and/or awkward read when referring to both Pitt and Jolie (for example, "Pitt and Jolie Pitt"); that is, if the person doesn't simply refer to her as "Jolie" in that instance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No, Jolie Pitt isn't her common name yet, but it likely will be in the near future, which is why I've brought it up. It's her legal, professional and public name and reputable media outlets have now adopted it. To quote policy: "If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the 'new' name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." The key word I think is routinely; sources like the ones I mentioned have only just started using it (or at least I hadn't noticed until now). So when does 'routinely' apply? If a majority of sources is still using it six months from now? A year? Btw, reputable media use Pitt and Jolie Pitt together, so I don't see the problem there. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it will be her common name in the near future either, given that she has been known as "Angeline Jolie" for far longer and therefore the vast majority of the sources about her use that name. Various newer sources referring to her as "Angelina Jolie Pitt" doesn't trump that, in my opinion. I would be against the move unless that name reached the level of "Jada Pinkett Smith" in acceptability. These days, it just seems natural to refer to "Jada Pinkett" as "Jada Pinkett Smith." Not so natural to refer to "Angelina Jolie" as "Angeline Jolie Pitt," or else we wouldn't even have to question the matter. As for "Pitt and Jolie Pitt" together, I mean for things in the article like the following: "After a two-month courtship, Jolie married actor Billy Bob Thornton on May 5, 2000, in Las Vegas." If we changed Jolie to "Jolie Pitt" there, it is confusing and awkward, no matter that readers will know that her last name is now Pitt before reaching that point in the article. She was not "Pitt" when she married Billy Bob Thornton. Another example is the following: "In early 2005, Jolie was involved in a well-publicized Hollywood scandal when she was accused of being the reason for the divorce of actors Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston. She and Pitt were alleged to have started an affair during filming of Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)." Using "Jolie Pitt" there is also confusing and awkward. For sentences like these, I would suggest simply using "Jolie," if this article were moved to Angelina Jolie Pitt. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For a better understanding of what I mean, take this example at the Jada Pinkett Smith article, where I changed "Pinkett Smith met Will Smith" to "Pinkett met Will Smith" for better flow. Notice that the section already used "Pinkett and Smith became friends" instead of "Pinkett Smith and Smith became friends." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Two more examples where I would forgo "Jolie Pit" are the following sentences: "Jolie and Pitt did not publicly comment on the nature of their relationship until January 2006, when Jolie confirmed that she was pregnant with Pitt's child." and "Jolie took on Pitt's name following their marriage." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinkett Smith is a very good example, yes. I think Angelina is heading in that direction, just based on the wide variety of sources that have made the switch, from New York Times to Vogue. I understand your latter point, but that's only a matter of good, clear writing. Anyway, I will come back to this in six months or so. It's entirely possible that Jolie Pitt won't be as widely picked up as I expect, but if it does, then WP:Common name is clear that we should consistently use Jolie Pitt (except, as you point out, where it would cause confusion). Until then, to address my own question, continuing to use Jolie for new material is probably best. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I only just noticed your own name change. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: Six months later, Jolie Pitt has not been widely adopted by the media, unless they're discussing the subject's humanitarian work. So the common name remains unchanged. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Jolie Angel Prince Isong (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability

With this and this edit, Ajax1995 removed pieces from the lead that acknowledge that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's perceived attractiveness is a part of their notability, stating "GOSSIP, TABLOID CONTENT,SUPERFLOUS, nothing to do with an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT IN THE LEDE, there is the body content for this chit chat 'he is so sexy, so good-looking'" and "GOSSIP, TABLOID CONTENT,SUPERFLOUS, nothing to do with an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT IN THE LEDE, chit chat 'she is so sexy, so good-looking' The same sock wrote the Jolie and Pitt articles, the same sentence! what a shame!"

I've centralized the discussion here, per WP:TALKCENT. As seen here and here, I reverted. And I reverted per WP:LEAD. This material is not simply gossip, tabloid, superfluous material. It is indeed a big part of their notability, as made very clear lower in their articles, especially in the case of Jolie, where her perceived physical attractiveness is analyzed by sources. That makes this a matter that should be briefly noted in the lead. Pitt's "In the media" section needs work when it comes to tying his perceived physical attractiveness to his notability, but it can be as well-crafted as Jolie's "In the media" section. While I can understand many editors viewing looks as trivial, looks commonly are not trivial as far as an actor's appearance goes, and especially when the actor has received as much attention for their looks as Pitt and Jolie have, or, for example, Marilyn Monroe. Furthermore, this has been discussed before; see Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 8#"Most beautiful" is unencyclopedic, Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10#Cited as "most beautiful" by whom? and why is this claim important to a supposedly objective article about a celebrity?, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48#Problem with biographies. Contrary to Ajax1995's claim, the inclusion of this material is not the result of a sock; it's the result of WP:Consensus among editors based on the WP:LEAD guideline. I'll alert WP:Biography, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and WP:Film to this matter for discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It is tabloidy but at the end of the day Wikipedia doesn't really make those distinctions i.e. if enough sources cover something we do too, generally. The purpose of the lead isn't just to cover what is notable about the subject, but to also briefly outline what the article covers. Since the article has an entire section dedicated to her appearance/looks it seems reasonable that the lead should at least touch upon this. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

First, the following sentences "As a public figure" and "Her personal life is the subject of wide publicity" are so "redundant", so trivial, Both (Pitt and Jolie) have been received wide publicity "as most of Hollywood actors", Kutchers, Lohans, Kardashians, etc, etc, have been received strong media coverage and OBVIOUSLY all of them are "public figures", not WORTHY OF MENTION (at least in the lead) because it seems so ridiculous AND SILLY, both are peacock "E! Entertainment" sentences, for the sole purpose of "to exaggerate" and "to exalt" the career of the subject.

Second, take for granted that Jolie and Pitt are goodlooking is so "SUBJETIVE" worthy of being mentioned on their own websites and on "People magazine and E!", "the world's most beautiful woman, by various media outlets", WHICH ONES, also many media outlets and ordinary people consider her "UGLY" and so, is it also worthy of being mentioned in the lead? sure not!; also many consider Jolie and Pitt terrible and OVERRATED actors (according to several polls), and so! all those media outlet statements and polls are so "SUBJETIVE POVs" and "SUPERFLUOUS", not in the lead! if you want to add that CHIT CHAT, there is the "IN THE MEDIA" section; then you can write, "Jolie and Pitt are so powerful and so goodlooking; the most SUCCESSFUL COUPLE OF ALL TIME and the most beautiful human beings on earth with a bunch of media coverage" (according to some media outlets). Ajax1995 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop WP:SHOUTING. It comes across as over-aggressive, and it makes it difficult for some people to easily read your contribution to the discussion.

Secondly, as Betty Logan said, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the contents of the article. We don't put this in the lead because we think it's important, necessarily. We put it in the lead because it's a significant section in the article itself. If the wording of the summary sentence in the lead is what you disagree with, then that is what will be discussed. As for "which ones?", the lead isn't a place to laundry list that either; that is covered in the relevant body section in the article. If there is an opposing opinion to her beauty and it is a significant enough position to have been extensively covered and discussed in RS sources, then it can be added to the relevant body section, and then added to the lead. At any rate, this information isn't added to the article because it is the opinion of the editors working here but because it is something that has been constantly and significantly remarked upon over the course of the subject's life. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Jolie is a pop culture figure and part of her notability (as reported by sources) is her perceived beauty. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not "shouting", emphasizing relevant facts; "perceived beauty"? Maybe right, maybe not. Other celebrities have their "perceived beauty", names? Chloë Grace Moretz, Alison Lohman, Chilean actress Cote de Pablo, many polls ranked them as one of the most beautiful young actresses of the world, and so! their Wikipedia articles make no mention of that superfluous info, "subject of media coverage" "she is a public figure", "she is beautiful", etc, etc...althought for many people they are pretty much beautiful than other "Hollywood Clichés" like Penélope Cruz, Jennifer Lopez, Anne Hathaway, Angelina Jolie ...... .Wikipedia is not about "how beauty is perceived in the media", is about their work, milestones, etc, etc. Greetings Ajax1995 (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, the high amount of caps and bold had led me to perceive it as shouting. By contrast to at least Moretz and Lohman, Jolie's career has been tied with her status as a sex symbol and has been perceived to be a cultural symbol of a feminine beauty. That is more than simply some rankings of "most beautiful woman", though the article also states that her three listings as "sexiest woman alive" has placed her significantly ahead of the other ranked women. Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch, Sessue Hayakawa, Ingrid Bergman, and Cary Grant have similar sentences in their leads. It's not mentioned because she is commonly thought beautiful but because her perceived beauty is believed by sources to be of cultural influence and it has had bearing on her career. Because of that, it's included and it's considered with some weight alongside her work and etc. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

'Wikipedia is not about "how beauty is perceived in the media", is about their work, milestones, etc, etc.' Actually, not quite correct. Articles are (ideally) complete biographies which means we cover how subjects are perceived by other sources. Have a look at Priyanka Chopra for example, where the lead refers to her sense of style. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the rather staid Britannica has this as the first sentence in their article, "Angelina Jolie, original name Angelina Jolie Voight (born June 4, 1975, Los Angeles, California, U.S.) American actress known for her sex appeal and edginess as well as for her humanitarian work." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty Logan, TenTonParasol and NeilN for addressing this while I was away. Ajax1995, you said, "take for granted that Jolie and Pitt are goodlooking is so 'SUBJETIVE'." Beauty can validly be called subjective, yes, but Pitt and Jolie have been consistently cited as two of the most beautiful people in the world, and not just by Americans. People have made such a big deal out of their looks that it resulted in Brangelina fever, and the anticipated birth of their biological child, Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, was cited as the most anticipated baby since Jesus Christ and as the most influential celebrity baby. Not to mention...images of their biological children became the highest paid images of all time. And, actually, as made clear in the Physical attractiveness article, there is some science behind beauty; it is not always necessarily subjective, especially when one takes into account just how often Pitt has been cited as the world's most beautiful man or Jolie has been cited as the world's most beautiful woman, and how often they have placed well ahead of other celebrities for their looks. Clearly, it's common that they are not rated as being on the same level as other celebrities when it comes to their looks. Jolie has consistently placed well ahead other celebrity women, so much so that it makes one wonder just how subjective beauty is. And the vast majority of the time she has placed well ahead of other celebrity women, it is because the public voted her as the number one beauty. Like the Appearance section in the article states, "Beyond her career, Jolie's appearance has been credited with influencing popular culture at large. In 2002, AfterEllen founder Sarah Warn observed that many women of all sexual orientations had publicly expressed their attraction to Jolie, which she considered a new development in American 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.'" The section clearly states more on the matter. For example, the following: "Jolie's physical attributes became highly sought-after among western women seeking cosmetic surgery; by 2007, she was considered 'the gold standard of beauty.'" In other words, Jolie's looks have had a major impact on culture. TenTonParasol has it right.

You stated, "WHICH ONES." Well, the lead is for summarizing. The question of "which ones?" is covered in the Appearance section. You stated, "also many media outlets and ordinary people consider her 'UGLY' and so, is it also worthy of being mentioned in the lead?" Well, I would love to see these many media outlets that consider her ugly. I have not come across any WP:Reliable sources asserting such. And even if I did, it would be a matter of WP:WEIGHT. By that, I mean that the vast majority of sources commenting on her looks would still be sources stating that she is beautiful and/or that many consider her beautiful and/or have tried to imitate her looks.

Bottom line is this: When a public figure's looks have impacted culture as much as Pitt and Jolie's looks have, and when reliable sources note that impact, we should cover it in their Wikipedia articles, including in the lead. If a celebrity's looks are a part of their notability, it should be covered, including in the lead. That is encyclopedic. And it is exactly what we do in the case of Marilyn Monroe and a number of other public figures, dead or alive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

DCMG

Will someone please add {{postnominals|country=GBR|DCMG} after her initial name as is customary since she received that honour from Queen Elizatbeth recently. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.58.231.207 (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't add postnoms for honorary damehoods/knighthoods. See Kevin Spacey, who is honorary KBE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2016

2601:2C5:C301:6F50:918D:D60B:3F54:C68B (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[[angelina jollie by brains powers divine

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Change of name 1

When did she change from Voight to Jolie? This isn't in the article, is it? Wythy (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That should be "drop Voight" of course Wythy (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

2002. It's covered in Early life and family. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The article contains the following: "Like her mother, Jolie has stated that she is part Iroquois, although her only known indigenous ancestors were 17th-century Hurons." The term Iroquois refers to two things: A language group which includes Huron, and a political confederation which did not and does not include the Huron. The sentence is like saying she hails from New Hampshire although she is a Democrat. If she has Huron ancestry she has Iroquois ancestry. The political reference is irrelevant.Ealtram (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The term Iroquois commonly refers to the six nations, not any linguistically related peoples. And even if they were the same peoples, Jolie still claimed significant indigenous ancestry when her family history shows differently. That said, it's not Wikipedia's job to pass judgement even implicitly, so feel free to rephrase. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Break up with Brat Pitt

Why isnt anyone takin abt this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.196.7.178 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? The divorce is mentioned in the article. If you mean all of the gossip and/or why there's not much discussion about the break up here on this talk page, we need to stick to the facts instead of the rumors and Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Claim not backed up

Hello. In the first paragraph on this page the claim is made that Angelina Jolie "has been cited as Hollywood's highest-paid actress" but there is no citation to back up that statement.. I have done a quick Google search and I have yet to find a source backing up that claim.. Thanks! --Eglavina (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Assalamoalaikum,

Respected Miss Angelina Julie, Wish you best of luck.I am your fan also. Regards, Saqib Ejaz Qureshi Mob 03238547620. Thanks. Saqib homoeopathy (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Child Formerly Known As "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt"

Angelina has confirmed that her child, born "Shiloh," identifies as male, and prefers the name "John." It's not been made apparent (at least, as far as I have been aware, this hasn't been well-publicised and, as a trans man, I'm a little skeptical of any word that isn't John's) what pronouns John prefers. Angelina and Brad have repeatedly said that they "identify as a boy" and "wants to be a boy," but both parents also still refer to them with she/her/hers pronouns, and feminine gendered words such"daughter," and "tomboy." Personally, I would view it as most appropriate to refer to John with the neutral "they," but I am admittedly not experienced with Wikipedia and editing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelquartz (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"John" doesn't exist; he is a media invention based on an out-of-context quote from 2008. Jolie indeed refers to her child as "Shiloh" and "she", so in my view Wiki should do the same. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation next to year of birth, why?

The Wiki articles for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do not have citations next to their years of birth. A citation implies the existence of ambiguity or contention. Jolie's year of birth has never been a matter of debate. Being the daughter of a celebrity, there were press announcements when she was born. There have never been any discrepancies about her age. Her age has never been lied about or misrepresented by the press.

A citation next to the subject's birthdate is necessary in articles for people who have lied about their age, e.g. Geena Davis, Rebecca De Mornay, Jessica Chastain, James Blunt, Timothy Dalton. All of them have had varying birth years published in magazines, almanacs and websites. For those whose birthdates have never varied, such as Jolie, it's pointless and potentially confusing to include a citation. This should be a new guideline and changes should be implemented to all applicable articles, in my opinion.

It seems that an editor or group of editors are playing God on this site. For comparison, Kate Winslet and Julia Roberts' articles have a pointless citation next to their birthdates (pointless because their cited birthdates have never varied) while the article for Madonna, who has lied about her age (it is well-documented [2][3][4][5]) has no citation next to her birthdate. Iistal (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Student assignment

M.nie, regarding this, I'm surprised to see a class focused on a celebrity article. What do you and/or your class have in store for this article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Reborn, Jeffmortensen is working on this article. He plans to add information about her involvement in the Malala movement. I will be peer editing his drafts.M.nie (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Angelina Jolie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fhealth%2F2001%2F10%2F02%2Ffmjoli02.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://familyorigins.com/users/d/a/h/Alfred-J-Dahlquist/FAMO2-0001/d197.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1635834%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/2001/jolie_int.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ajolie-fanclub.livejournal.com/415778.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/article/0%2C26334%2C1537302%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/article/0%2C%2C20127629%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C995905%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006073340/http://www.people.com/people/article/0%2C%2C20034523_1187416%2C00.html to http://www.people.com/people/article/0%2C%2C20034523_1187416%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008003231/http://www.empireonline.com/100sexiest/default.asp?star=1 to http://www.empireonline.com/100sexiest/default.asp?star=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906072452/https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/star-style/a/5917588/who-is-the-most-beautiful/ to https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/star-style/a/5917588/who-is-the-most-beautiful/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Filmography section again

Mika1h, regarding this, how to include the filmography material has been discussed before; see Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 11#Update Filmography Section. One issue with having it in the "See also" section or in the "Career" section is that it can be easily overlooked by readers. Because of the way that our actor biographies are usually set up, readers expect to see a Filmography section in these articles. When they don't see one, they may think that this material is missing. With the setup you have implemented, readers can easily overlook the link from the table of contents because it's common for readers to not click on the first heading in a section with subsections. They may think that "Career" is just the description and that it's the subsections that have all the important material. And, for this article, with the exception of the link you added, they would be correct in thinking that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Prayer for the wild at heart, since Mika1h has not yet replied, any thoughts? Since Mika1h has not yet replied, I'm thinking that I will simply revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll wait, since Mika1h currently has not edited since June 2. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

For visibility, the link needs to be in its own section, so I have restored it. I would strongly prefer to include a list of notable films (Julianne Moore, also an FA, provides a good example), but others have expressed concerns regarding neutrality. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do to get more opinions on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You can give a Julianne Moore setup a try on this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I will. The films I included here incidentally already followed the same criteria. Except instead of overall acclaim I looked at award recognition for Jolie individually, because her films are typically not well received. By making these criteria explicit, like at Moore, we avoid POV issues, right? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. Go for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017

115.164.169.82 (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018

Angelina Jolie lived in Blauvelt New york as a kid. 96.246.215.21 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 01:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

DCMG again

DCMG has been added to this article times before, but always removed. Prayer for the wild at heart, who wrote most of this article's content (but hasn't been back on Wikipedia since 2017) removed it one or more times. And as seen at Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 11#DCMG, Wikimandia was against its inclusion.

Recently, Bueller 007 added it to the lead and infobox, stating, "adding postnominals as in steven spielberg, etc." And Attic Salt removed it from the lead, stating, "Remove oddly formatted, redundant note on honor."

Thoughts on including DCMG at this or other articles? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure what I wrote then (too lazy to look) but I am FOR including it. It's a major honor and I don't see why it wouldn't be included after her name? She obviously doesn't got by "Dame Angelina" but the postnominals are fine. The properly formatted template, if you hover over it, should make it clear it is honorary. By the way, Angelina accepted the honor from I believe the queen so it's not like declined it (which some people do). —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Already given in info box, right below her name. It is also mentioned in last paragraph of the lede. Why mention it yet another time so early in the article? Attic Salt (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Gender of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt.

I know that Shiloh's gender is to be determined or transboy. The table in Angelina Jolie#children looks like transphobic. --Sharouser (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sharouser, see Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10#Changing "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt" name, where Shiloh's gender identity was discussed before. We can't go by rumors and we have to be mindful of the WP:BLP policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What’s transphobic is you people projecting a gender onto a child who is female and happens to dress like a tomboy most of her life, or as Angelina Jolie calls it “Montenegro style.” Everytime Angelina Jolie refers to Shiloh it’s usually “Shi”. Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this and this that I reverted Miztasha on, we might need to revisit the gender matter since it's now years later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

John Jolie-Pitt

Since Angelina Jolie's first biological child (referred to here by their birthname, Shiloh) has asked to be called John, and his parents have affirmed this, I think it would be more appropriate for this name to appear in the article. eg: John Jolie-Pitt (born Shiloh Jolie-Pitt). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.220.25 (talk • contribs)

It takes 0.005 seconds to look right above you and see this was already discussed and we are absolutely no doing it. She is a child. We do note violate BLP for agenda. Trillfendi (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead image

Mazewaxie, regarding this and this, I have to state that I am still for the previous image, which focuses on her face. She does not look substantially different from four or five years ago. Newer is not always better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I personally prefer the new one but I'm okay with any of them. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

Shiloh is a transgender male named John, but this article hasn't updated this common knowledge yet. This goes against Wikipedia's policy of supporting transgender people. Voblercobbler (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Voblercobbler: Please provide a source. Please read WP:ONUS.

We have been through this enough. Shiloh is NOT transgender and is not called John. This goes against Wikipedia’s policy of invading the privacy of children! Trillfendi (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)