Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Tattoos

For those who know about the topic, I'd like a better list of her tattoos. It says that she has 13 and more than three can be listed. I saw a photograph with "13 5 1960" in Roman numerals on her left arm, and I have no idea what it represents. Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• We gotta be careful of WP:NOR, though. Unless there is an actual article or book giving an up-to-date account of what she has and what they mean, it might be a challenge passing this through WP:BLP. 23skidoo (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• She has "XIII V MCMXL" (13 May 1940) on her left forearm, the date of Churchill's Blood, toil, tears, and sweat speech - however, as with many of her tattoos, I don't think she ever actually commented on this, so the meaning is more or less media speculation and not a definite fact. Initially, there was a full list of her tattoos, but it was removed during the peer review I think. Also, during the featured article nomination, there was an understanding that only a handful of her tattoos should be mentioned (ideally those that offer some insight about her personality), while a full list of 'body art' is not desirable and unencyclopedic trivia. For example, a list of her tattoos can be found here [1], more pictures and explanations [2]. At one point, there was an external link to a website listing and explaining all of her tattoos, but I think it was removed per WP:EL, because these sites normally violate copyright. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• If a good source can be found, though (one which either she or a good third party like a bioigrapher gives an accounting) I think it would be notable to have a more detailed account of her tattoos, because it is considered a major part of her persona. But it can't just be a willy nilly list and guesswork. And it would have to be updated from time to time as she has been known to revise her tattoos (such as replacing the Billy Bob one). 23skidoo (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the last sentence in the tattoo section rather redundant? I think it's talking about the prayer, which was already discussed, but maybe I'm just dumb. :) And, in a Rolling Stones article, she says she covered the window with a tattoo of a tiger, which is on her lower back. I know I've seen pictures of her getting that tiger tattoo done, but I can't remember where it was. I'll look in my magazine articles in a couple days, once I unpack them. :) 74.140.234.35 (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another suggestion for addition, and certainly highly contributing to an insight into her persona. On the place of her left arm, a tatoo is lasered out and she keeps on adding the map coordinates for the birthplaces of her children. As her personality changes, the topics of her tatoos - coming and going - change.

Criticism on Adoption

Brad Pitt has not adopted the children. Jolie only added his last name and made him a legal guardian. He is not their adoptive father. http://www.moono.com/news/news00160.html http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm http://kadnexus.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/return-of-the-brangelina/ http://www.languageofblood.com/whywrite.html

A section about adoption should be in the article. The positive and negatives on both sides. Otherwise it's POV. Right now it has a tinge of "Adoption saves children" so this should directly be addressed.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since no one added anything, I did. I'll take it if someone takes that part off even with the citations, that this article is POV, and I'll report it as such. However, you are welcome to add counterarguments.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting your additions because the sources used are questionable to say the very least. One is a blog which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Another is what appears to be a gossip site (Moono.com). That source also does NOT state that Maddox was sold or bought, it clearly states that he may have been bought. That's hardly an admission. That article also has no author and has a great deal of tabloid phrasing including Jolie has told a friend., and that such & such told a source. Adding parody videos to support your claim also seems questionable. Celebrities get made fun of constantly so that is not a barometer for scandal or wrongdoing, that's just plain criticism. Other celebrities have adopted foreign children for years so I think this attack on Jolie is more personal than anything else. This is a featured article so it has been put through the motions by several editors to get rid of POV and the like. If you still feel this topic needs to be addressed, I suggest you find more reliable sources than gossip sites and parody videos to back up this claim. This article is about Jolie, her life, and what makes her notable, not the pros and cons of international adoption. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My response is basically: take the removal however you want and report away. As Pinkadelica said, to become a featured article, it goes through a rigorous examination regarding reliable sourcing, neutrality editing, and fairly intense criticism. The only really nearly viable thing you seemed to add to this article was a 4 year old one time item about a question raised regarding the adoption agency Jolie went through having problems with questionable adoptions. I did a thorough search trying to find any follow-up legitimate news items that found that her adoption of Maddox was tainted or illegal and guess what? Nothing. Nowhere. The question was raised when the agency she used first came under scrutiny, and had the adoption turned out to be questionable, it most certainly would have had more press than one item. The item says she was going to be facing a huge legal battle to keep Maddox, but even when the agency's owner faced legal problems, no question surfaced regarding Jolie. Another source you used is based on a gossip item originally from the Daily Mirror from January of this year, saying Jolie and Pitt were travelling to Africa to adopt another child, with a supposed statement from her brother confirming a trip that was planned for this very past weekend. It's a gossip rag, with an item run before the news regarding her very apparent pregnancy hit the press. Given the announcement that she was using fertility drugs to increase the chance of conception, I have to wonder why this gossip blurp sounds suspect? The languageoftheblood site is a self-published blog. Cited or not, it's not been subjected to independent objective fact-checking, and is essentially, at best, original research. Not acceptable. Pagesix and the New York Post are just unvalidated gossip and would never be acceptable as reliable sources. If you want to open a critical analysis of the pros and cons of international adoption, then write an article elsewhere and don't attempt to play it in the midst of other articles, especially one that has passed featured article status, based on some obscure website charges that Jolie hasn't done enough for the author's favorite cause. She doesn't owe anyone that. But it will have to pass WP:BLP, which this addition to Jolie's article calls into question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New lead picture

Just for my 2 cents, the current lead picture is a much better choice than some of the ones used previously. 23skidoo (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like it. Only shows the face. Image:Angelina jolie lugar.jpg was better. Gimmetrow 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with just showing the face? Hayden Panettiere's lead image is just the face and is actually quite striking (and one of the few exceptions I've seen to the "Commons images are lame" rule. And the one used here is pretty good, too. 23skidoo (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

At some point after I posted that last comment someone went and changed the lead image at the article, replacing it with what they thought was a "better" Commons image, though IMO it is exceedingly poor. So please ignore my above comment as it seems to no longer apply to the article in question. (I refer to the Hayden Panettiere image; the current lead image for Jolie is still a very good one. [User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I Just Say

That i posted on here that Angelina was expecting twins and some stupid gay moderator called enamyofthestate kept deleting it, so i actually was right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.46.24 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008

Hopefully, you'll realise calling someone gay doesn't get you anywhere. If you couldn't back up your claims beforehand, thats your problem. Now its been confirmed, it can be sourced, and therefore should be on Wikipedia. Matt (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Hilary Clinton

I heard on Google's website that Angelina Jolie is distantly related to Hilary Clinton they are 9th cousins once removed and that Angelina is related to her on her mother`s side and Hilary is related to her on her mother`s side meaning that they are maternal cousins to each other which also means that Hilary`s daughter who is an only child is Angelina`s 10th cousin and Angelina `s children are Hilary's daughter`s 10th cousins once removed and if Hilary's daughter has children of her own then Hilary`s grandchildren and Angelina`s children would be 11th cousins to each other right or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Animal Abuse

I see the Controversy section I put up was deleted. That's fine. I just didn't want to mess with the flow of the text elsewhere. Though it is old news I couldn't find one word about personal drug use in the article other than for a character of hers. My primary reason was of course the mention of animal abuse in her youth. I think this could be a line under the early life section. I couldn't find any mention of animal abuse by her earlier than yesterday. Synchaser (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of a bio article is not to detail every stupid thing someone has done in their youth. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much detail can fit in one line on the page. The 5 paragraphs on her Humanitarian work might not be enough to balance it out. :-) Synchaser (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see how her past drug use should be included (the first paragraph of the media section, following sentence about her 'wild girl' image might be a good place for that), however, I fail to see the encyclopedic value of the fact that she caused the deaths of several animals as a child. This might be seen as cruel, but to me, this has more the quality of tabloid trivia than relevant biographical information. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the line in there portrays her as being cruel. I think there is a real honesty about it that I found refreshing, even if it was on video in a private setting. I'm uncomfortable with even calling the topic in this discussion "Animal Abuse" but couldn't think of anything else off hand. And she certainly didn't come off as bragging about it like the Sun article said. On the other hand she seems to have a real fascination with death as a youngster and a lot of kids do - then a lot of kids don't. With the cutting stuff and funeral director thing (might have been said in jest), I can't help but wonder if that isn't in some way connected perhaps on a subconcious level with her pets. Quite a bit of valid information originates from tabloids and then gets carried by the main stream media. If you feel strongly that it has no relevancy in her biography or think it treats her unfairly go ahead and edit or delete it. I just wanted to see a tad bit of balance and thought it would go in well for that section. Synchaser (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

People do stupid things as kids, and wikipedia isn't really the authority to hold them accountable for it. I can see including it for example if she were a child actress, or if it were something that were still occurring now that shes an adult. But in this case, I just don't feel that every stupid thing someone has done as a child is notable for a biographical article. That, and there's really not any ways of including it that don't sound like a tabloid smear. Nar Matteru (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing in Awards section

Following a message of "section lacking citations", the award section now states as its source the list of Jolie's awards from IMDb. I asked in WikiProject Film's discussion regarding reliability of IMDb in this regard. The reply is IMDb is not exactly a reliable source for such info. Indeed, Wikipedia:Citing IMDb also (probably) tells the same thing (probably, because I could not make out if "hard data" includes awards). So, the editors are requested to include reliable sources in the awards section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the awards information, aside from the filmography listing, the quintessential IMDb "hard data"? This information is not included by members, like biographical details or future projects, but by employed editors, following award shows. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of who compiles the IMDb awards dta, so asked the question there in the WikiProject Films' discussion board. According to one editor says, "using IMDb as a stepping stone. Sometimes non-notable awards are listed, so you can take the keywords from a film's award page and search for the main website (like the Academy Awards, as TheBlazikenMaster suggested). If you can't find a main website or if you find a website that seems too bloggish, then it is probably not worth inclusion. Another way is to check to see if an award has a Wikipedia article and review its references to see how prominent it is."--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So I don't think there is a problem then, because the table only includes major awards, far from everything the IMDb lists on their site. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection off

The article's protection has expired so it's open for anyone to edit once again. I give it about 24 hours before we'll have to lock it down again because of IPs. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like the IP brigade is at it again, doing things like removing pictures, posting unsourced rumors about births, etc. Any objections to me locking the article down again? 23skidoo (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Please LOCK it again. I just posted something she said, and it's gone. I will do a revert. Ruth E (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The post was removed because it wasn't really in keeping with the rest of the article, and it most certainly was not removed by an IP vandal. The format of the post, with the entire quote linked off-site, is inappropriate. We don't routinely post the daily quote from Brangelina. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Since unregistered IP users have decided to target this page with vandalism - again - I've locked it down until further notice. Any legitimate users who want to edit this page can make their requested changes here, or better still register with Wikipedia and spend some time gaining experience as editors first. Given that every time this article is unprotected it becomes a magnet for vandalism, I strongly advise that it remain semi-protected permanently and am pursuing inquiries to see if it's possible to institute a ban -- as in if anyone wants to remove the protection, they can't without first going through a process. This may sound extreme, but I think the record shows that this article needs permanent protection due to ongoing IP abuse. 23skidoo (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Angelina's air force. Yes, she is becoming an Aviatrix

While it may not be worth a section yet, the aviation community is talking about her growing fleet.

From http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=38089&highlight=&sid=7759ace6aa79003b5a8759b4cabd39eb Ms. Jolie's personal aircraft are a Cirrus SR-22GTS N808MX which replaced an earlier Cirrus SR-22G2 N805MX which was used to earn her PPL. Added to the fleet last year was Cessna Caravan N48JA. Currently N808MX was approved to be reregistered N805MX. Both aircraft are owned by Ms. Jolie's production company Chivan Productions. And possibly N311CG Gulfstream V-SP c/n 5108 registered on title is AVN AIR (aka GE Credit) reported to be owned by Angelina Jolie.

Pictures justjared.buzznet.com/2006/08/21/angelina-jolie-airplane-flying/

--Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest children

Have the names of her twins actually been confirmed? The news sources quote the doctor as giving the names but wouldn't that best be received by her publicist or someone who is actually allowed to give that information? Also, her twins are premature according to the dates her camp has given out, and this article states it was a scheduled c-section. I have a hard time believing that a doctor would schedule a premature delivery. I think both items should probably best be taken out of the article until they can properly be confirmed and cited. Susan

The parents are expected to give the millions of dollars gained by selling the first photo of the twins to charity. Because of their high tax brackets, this will be a cash savings of millions on their estimated taxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.126.95 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

71.231.95.11 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the boy is Knox Léon, not Knox Leon, according to the birth certificate (Léon is the name of Angelina's great-great grandfather). See [3]. --Markov (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Copyright Violation

Danorton (talk)

Compare the second two paragraphs of this article with http://www.theinsider.com/celebrities/Angelina_Jolie . I did not bother to examine the article in further, so there might well be additional violations. -- Danorton (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you the only plagiarism here was done by The Insider. I wrote the second and third paragraph of the lead over two years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angelina_Jolie&diff=prev&oldid=67444013). Over time, it was slightly rewritten to its current form, which was then copied for their website, apparently. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Enemy of the State. I also contributed to the paragraphs (though I can't remember what if any of my contributions remain). Wikipedia is frequently copied by other websites, and the GDFL license I believe makes this material fair game, even if they don't acknowledge it. 23skidoo (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr Tirade

Should the tirade Roseanne Barr made against her and her family be included in the Jolie in the media section? I'm only asking. http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/10893/roseanne-blasts-angelina-jolie-and-jon-voight-over-political-opinions/ --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not of encyclopedic merit; it's not important to the understanding of the topic. See WP:SOAP. --Danorton (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unless the tirade (which I've been unable to examine as the link provided isn't working for me) achieves some form of notoriety (for example the Rosie O'Donnell vs. Donald Trump feud of a few years ago, or even the current well-publicized disagreement between Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood over the depiction of blacks in American World War II films. Jolie is a public figure who occasionally makes political statements and therefore she is open to criticism, but this fact in and of itself is not notable. 23skidoo (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubly agree. Jolie gets blasted on a daily basis since she has been involved in some controversial events these past few years (e.g., her involvement with the UN and politics, her extensive family, her relationship with Brad Pitt). There is no notoriety here -- at least, not in my opinion. Ms. Sarita (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously one needs to make sure we aren't looking at the subject through rose-coloured glasses, but the fact Roseanne has a bone to pick with them (I wish I could get that link to work, I'm curious now!) falls into the "big deal" category. Now, if one of the presidential candidates were to sound off about something related to Jolie, OK fine (thinking here how Dan Quayle and Candace Bergen went at it long ago). 23skidoo (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...the link seems to work just fine for me. In a nutshell, Roseanne rips Jon Voight, Jolie, and Pitt a new one about the family's political opinions on the presidential campaign, how reports have insinuated that Jolie will side with McCain, and how Voight supposedly said, "God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president..." It's just a hot piece of drama that doesn't even need to be mentioned in the article. Ms. Sarita (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only notability here is in Jolie agreeing with her estranged father on something (though I take anything that suggests Jolie is a conservative with a few grains of salt). A person's political leanings, whether they choose to make them public or not, fall into the "who gives a damn" category. I'd rather see the article make mention of the news reports that Jolie is presently suffering severe postpartum depression. 23skidoo (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's quite notable if it was reported by many major news sources (Google it and you'll know), so it doesn't fall under the WP:SOAP policy. Her postpartum depression by the way, is pure speculation; it's as verifiable as the rumors that she and Brad are breaking up, so that wouldn't merit being in the article at this point. And as for the statement that feuds such as Clint and Spike and Rosie and Donald are more notable than this; they're not. This has received considerable coverage in the era it happened as much as the aforementioned feuds (especially Jon Voight threw one right back at Roseanne). --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that 23skidoo was being sarcastic in his/her "postpartum depression" comment but I could be wrong. As you can see, I do not agree that the Roseanne tirade warrants any merit to the article. We could post every single tirade that someone has made against Jolie...but that would make the article far too long. I don't see any reason why it should be included as it only denotes one's opinion about Jolie. However, many people have not commented on this section in the talk page. You can try to fit it into the article and see if people revert it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I am sorry for not getting the sarcasm (though it's hard to identify in text, because you can't "read" emotions). And this tirade made big news because of the subject matter and the timing with the ongoing elections, and Roseanne is famous for her controversial comments (so maybe consider adding it on her page instead? I don't know), that's all I was saying. But the buzz of the news has now passed, so you may have a point in forgetting about it. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. Like I said, I could be wrong about 23skidoo's sarcasm. Anyway, regardless of whether or not a person's rant is famous or not, it is only one person's opinion of Jolie. I hadn't even heard of this particular rant (maybe because I'm too busy focusing on the hurricanes and the presidential conventions). In my opinion, it is not notable to post one lady's political/personal opinions about Jolie on the article. Ms. Sarita (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Filmography is Not Prospective

I just removed a reference to a 2010 planned release, but more because I can't see that it's anything more than pure speculation and it hasn't even started filming yet. But is there a written guideline or style suggestion on adding unreleased items to a filmography list? --Danorton (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, somebody beat me to the deletion. I added an HTML comment asking editors to discuss unreleased works before adding it to the filmography section. --Danorton (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda is 2008.

i don't have an account so i can't change it. it's in the second paragraph i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.219.205 (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. You can edit even if you don't have an account! --Lova Falk (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not on this page because it is semi-protected due to IP vandalism. Anyway, I updated the date reference a few days ago. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Children

I think, instead of saying she has three adopted children and three biological children, it should just say she has six children, and then list their names. It is already mentioned elsewhere in the article that Maddox, Pax, and Zahara are adopted. Do we really need to seperate the children into groups of "adopted" and "biological"? She has six children, period. ShiLover (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• On talk pages new threads go at the bottom, so I have relocated this discussion. In answer to the comment, the fact she has adopted several children is considered quite notable. Therefore to state this wherever applicable is perfectly acceptable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

and also her twins were born on the 13th of july not the 12th as thbe artivle states.(900neojames900 (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

According to the reference, the twins were born on the evening of July 12, 2008. If you care to dispute it, then you need a reference. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ShiLover; to state "Children: three, and three adopted" implies that the adopted kids aren't her children or aren't her children in the same way the biological ones are. If you want to point out that some are adopted and some are not, the better way would be to state: "three biological, and three adopted" or "three adopted, and three biological" since the adopted ones came first.--Gloriamarie (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see why the criteria is necessary in the infobox. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe this criteria has been established by the Biography Wikiprojects as they created the infoboxes; you may wish to ask there. 23skidoo (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. What I meant is that the original template for the Actor Infobox doesn't even include a "children" section. So it must have been added for some reason. I don't see a "children" listing for any of the other actors that I have looked at. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, I stand corrected. I thought it was in the standard infobox. (It is a legitimate question, though, were there to be such a field) 23skidoo (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jenny Shimizu - domestic partner?

I was wondering what constitutes a "domestic partner" - someone with whom Jolie has been in a long-term, marriage-like relationship (such as Brad Pitt), or any person Jolie has been in a relationship with? If it's the latter, Jenny Shimizu should be included - Jolie dated her in 1995-1996 while on a hiatus from then-boyfriend Jonny Lee Miller, as stated in a 2001 interview with Rolling Stone. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do people who date generally become known as domestic partners? Of course not. There needs to be an indication of something more permanent intended. 23skidoo (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with SHILOVER also because children are children and should not be sorted into a "biological" or "adopted" group. It doesn't matter how her family came about, it matters that they are family.MUSiC SPEAKS 7 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)MUSiC SPEAKS 7 12 January 2009

Second sentence of the lead

I'm not sure why User:Wallie fells the need to change the "one of the world's most beautiful women" part in the lead. I don't like the new wording really. The reason this is in the lead at all is because Jolie has topped a lot of these magazine "hot lists" which makes it a notable fact about her. Citing just one of these lists in the lead however is more like random trivia that shouldn't be mentioned there at all. (Also, People named her the most beautiful in 2006, so it's not even factually accurate right now.) EnemyOfTheState_|talk 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I started to undo it when I saw it but thought I'd wait to see if others had issues with it. By all means, as far as I'm concerned, change it back! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Boy

Was she a Tom Boy as a kid? The article doesn't say.

65.101.228.154 (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What is a "Tom Boy"?

Is she a man? Why is she referred as an actor if she is an actress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.196.31.171 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you don't know the term. A tomboy is a girl who may dress and like to play games more associated with boys. They might like to play baseball or football, or wear blue jeans and t-shirts, or just be more rough and tumble. No, Angelina Jolie is not a man. She'd be hard pressed to explain two pregnancies if she were. She is referred to as an actor because it is not a gender specific term and can refer to either males or females who act for a living. The term "actress" was coined for females in the era when everything fell over itself to differentiate males from females. Wildhartlivie (talk)

It's obvious the IP didn't bother to read the discussion on the "actor/actress" issue. Use of gender-neutral terminology is the accepted standard on Wikipedia, as it is in most media. I do have to wonder why this appears to be the only article about a female actor of the many I edit and have on my watchlist where this is even an issue. 23skidoo (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I just assumed this was a person whose first language isn't English and let it go at that. I often revert that same change on Michelle Pfeiffer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Why the hell isn't this a GA yet? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC) By whom and why was this article rated B-class exactely? Sloan21 11:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)