Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Summary Paragraph

I hate to sound TOO pedantic, but the introductory sentence of this page states that Angelina Jolie is an American film actor and UN Goodwill Ambassador. She is neither. She is, surely, an American film actress and and UN Goodwill Ambassadress . . .82.214.225.237 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • "Ambassadress"? Where does that come from? That term is never used. As for "actress" that term is no longer used in the gender-neutral media. Actor refers to both male and female in the media and my understanding is Wikipedia follows this standard in its MOS. 23skidoo (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Actress" is still used in a lot of Wikipedia articles, though, and in valid news sources, not to mention for award nominations/wins. But I never had a problem with this article using it for Jolie/being applied to any girl/woman. It has become a gender-neutral term after all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no word such as "Ambassadress". And the word "Actor" is regardless of gender. --::semper fidelis:: 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurbutterfly (talk • contribs)

Actor or Actress

In English the use of the word Actor to pertain to persons of the female gender is improper usage and the word Actress should always be used. Also the words Actor and Actress are proper nouns and should be capitalized. So I have and will continue to change the word Actor (when pertaining to women) to Actress. However unless someone can add reference links (preferably to video footage) of Angelina Jolie referring to herself as an actor then I will let it go...!!!!!Antiedman (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this article, where Jolie states, on page 3, "I thought I'd become a funeral director when I wasn't going to be an actor."
Not to mention that the English definition, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "a theatrical performer." Nowhere in that definition does it mention gender. Just thought you should know that so you can stop reverting the article and avoid being banned.
ETA: I was unaware that the word "actor" or "actress" is supposed to capitalized. I believe that you are incorrect in this. Ms. Sarita (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's another quote: "I think that sometimes people take me less seriously in my work for the UN because I am an actor." See: [1] Lova Falk (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's an even better quote, Lova Falk. Thanks for providing it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the two articles given above as references for Angelina using actor over actress. ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on this: I don't believe whether or not Jolie uses the word 'actor' should be of too much relevance here, especially since there are probably just as many instances, where she used 'actress' ([2], [http://justjared.buzznet.com/2006/12/27/angelina-jolie-interview/]). What's more interesting: is there a WP standard that's generally agreed on, and is 'actor' actually a common word in American English for female performer; I guess the first point is debatable, but actor certainly seems pretty common for a woman in American English. Thus, it's perfectly acceptable to use 'actor', per WP:Gender-neutral language. EnemyOfTheState|talk 10:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, as Enemy says above, there is a Wikipedia standard. Journalistic standards such as the Canadian Press Style Guide and others say "actor" is to be used for both male and female. Whether it's "correct English" or not is beside the point. Most gender-neutral terminology throws "correct English" out the window anyway. In the newspaper world we get hit with criticism about this all the time (as well as the fact that in 99% of cases the word "that" is removed, plus there are other things done in written journalism that may not be kosher in an academic thesis). In the case of WP style, Antiedman is certainly welcome to dispute the use, but unfortunately the only way to get the style changed is to lobby for a change to the applicable Wikipedia policy. And since Consensus can change there's nothing stopping any editor from attempting to get such a change made. For now though we have to stick to the rules. 23skidoo (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, both of you are absolutely right. Lova Falk (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I like the two references for the word 'actor' in the very first sentence too much - this looks very redundant to me, as if people are disputing she is acting. I'm not sure what you are trying to source here exactly; as I stated above, I don't believe her own use of the word 'actor' should have much relevance for this article. I also don't think the enforcement of WP guidelines needs any references. IMHO, these two footnotes look rather awkward and if anything hurt readability. EnemyOfTheState|talk 12:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I did not expect the sources to actually be placed in the article. Antiedman asked for references of Jolie using the term "actor" to describe herself, so we provided them for him/her. If you don't like the references in the article, then remove them. I believe that Antiedman can simply look at this talk page if he/she feels like reverting the article...again. Ms. Sarita (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cites were:

Removed. Gimmetrow 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing references?.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
SkyWalker, I advise you to read the entire discussion. Thank you. Ms. Sarita (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As do I. I fully support the removal of these references because no other biographical article on a female actor goes to this length. As EnemyOfTheState rightly points out, it indicates that there is a dispute as to whether Angelina Jolie is involved in the profession of acting. The fact there is a dispute as to whether to use gender-specific terminology cannot be denied, but this is not the forum to address it. If any editor (not just those involved in the discussion) wish to push for a change to Wikipedia policy on the matter, there are proper channels to go through; similar debates have been held regarding other gender-specific terms. The fact (good or bad) is in the English language most if not all of the gender-neutral forms happen to be identical to the male-specific form. That's just the way the language works, though of course it's not consistent as I've never seen a woman author referred to as a writress. I have seen the term authoress used, though. And Ambassadoress. But it's rare 23skidoo (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I also fully agree with the removal of the references. The line referring to this discussion is enough. Lova Falk (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is it even THAT important, though? Why inflate this problem to something this big when you cannot ignore that she is a woman and you cannot ignore that "actress" would suffice. The only problem anyone has had here is that "actor" needs to be changed to "actress" because it is more commonly used to imply the person is male. English is a neuter-rich language, but why not use the feminine form of the word since she is a woman? There is absolutely no problem with it. I sincerely doubt this would have been a problem if the first word used was actress. We all know what an actress is. There is no silly gender dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilepluume (talk • contribs) 01:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This edit war rages on. 'Actress' (Merriam-Webster: a woman who is an actor) is specifically female, and I've asked this question twice, without any reply but with a revert: WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT? OK, 'actor' may be gramatically right, but so is 'actress', is it not? Hence, no need to (stubbornly) use fancy gender-neutral terms. And NO, there are a lot of us Wikipedia editors who are NOT getting used to it, plus several hundred million users who aren't, either! --AVM (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to observe here that the only person who is edit-warring is you, AVM. Your posting of the above diatribe into the article is completely inappropriate, completely inappropriate and not something that should ever be done to a featured article. Editors who came to this article a LONG TIME before you passed by decided to use the language used by Jolie herself about her occupation and your independent decision to change that bucks editor consensus, which is also inappropriate. There is no mandate to use a word such as "actress", and by WP:GNL, which says "Please consider using gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision", is absolutely acceptable. That has been done here and what you are doing is imposing your perspective, which to some people would be considered antiquated, onto the article. There is no question, in using the term "actor", about Jolie's gender. That's a ridiculous statement. Actors have been using this terminology for some time now, which you could note by watching Screen Actors Guild awards ceremonies, where actors state "I am Angelina Jolie, and I am an actor." No one is suggesting that you change your use of terminology, but you certainly are imposing your viewpoint and will upon this article by trying to force a change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, you are wrong in several issues here. First, it takes at least two to fight a war, hence your "observation" that "the only person who is edit-warring is you" (me) is illogical. Second, if you look carefully at the article's history, you will notice the term has been changed and reverted several times. I just happened to be one of the latest to "pass by" (and very likely not the last) and set the word straight. For example, a very recent edit by user Excuseme99 (March 12, 2009) rightly says: "she is an ACTRESS. stop calling her an actor, it sounds funny and is completely unnecessary". Third, you seem not to have noticed the sheer length of this ("Actor or actress") section, so your impression that the subject has already been settled ("Editors who came to this article a LONG TIME before you passed by decided to use the language used by Jolie herself") is far from true. Fourth, you say that my "posting of the above diatribe into the article is completely inappropriate", while you blissfully accept and have reinstated the warning: "Actor is a gender-neutral term used to identify both males and females. See the talk page, and read the article (actor) for more information" which looks as if some 'authority' already decided the issue, and which is equally inappropriate. Fifth, I'm not trying to impose my perspective or my viewpoint and will upon this article. I just made an attempt to use the word employed by several prestigious publications, such as Vanity Fair (magazine) ("Angelina Jolie is more than an outstanding actress"), instead of a word ('actor') which when applied to a woman some people would consider ridiculous, despite the fact that Jolie herself (who is no authority on Languages, by the way) has used it. Finally, if you read WP:GNL in more detail, you may find the last sentence says: "Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman")". So, many people find that actress is appropriate as well. Regards, --AVM (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually what is going on here is that this is a featured article and editors since that time have worked quite to keep that status valid. Also what I see here is that there is a neutral and non-aggressive hidden note that was put into the article in October 2007 regarding the use of the term "actor". Every so often, an editor comes by and applies what could be viewed as a backward viewing mirror to the article, hops right in and changes the word and then gets annoyed when regular editors of the page object. In fact, you changed the word here, without so much as an edit summary, which was reverted by a different editor. Later, you came by and changed it again, with a snippy edit summary that included "Someone is getting stubborn about 'actor'" and inserted a belligerent message into the article that said "'Actress': (Merriam-Webster: a woman who is an actor) is specifically female, WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT? OK, 'actor' may be gramatically right, but so is 'actress', is it not? Hence, no need to (stubbornly) use fancy gender-neutral terms. And NO, there are a lot of us Wikipedia editors that ARE NOT getting used to it, plus several hundred million users who aren't, either! GOT IT?" Note that you first posted that message into the article and then posted it above, calling it an edit war, claiming you'd asked the question twice, although if one looks over the last 500 posts to this page, you had never posted on this talk page until you posted that. I'm not sure there are many editors who would read all of this and not think "contentious." It was inappropriate, and in view of the fact that you did that after changing it the second time, there aren't many who would read it and not think that you were being hostile. And as I look at your comments, I'd only say that it isn't a lot of support to reference an editor who has made less than 100 edits, one of which was to paste complete sections from a Yahoo biography into an article and who also went into this article, reformatted section titles not in accordance with MOS, changed dates of occurrences based, not on the citations that were already present [3], or ones that confirmed the original dates and content, [4], and not once, but twice, [5], and based it all on... what he or she thinks is correct. Finally, the discussion in this section was left to accumulate, while there had been a LOT of lengthy discussion archived, in order to leave it readily accessible and visible. Sometimes size doesn't mean much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My four cents on this:

  • Whether it's "correct English" or not is beside the point. - Actually no, it is actually the point as the article has to be written in correct English.
  • Most gender-neutral terminology throws "correct English" out the window anyway. - That's too bad for gender-neutrality and stuff - if correct English is different then correct English has to win out. What newspapers do is actually beside the point.
  • However, as "actor" seems to be used for females as well it seems to be correct. That doesn't mean that "actress" is in any way wrong - it is just as correct (in contrast to the to my knowledge non-existing *ambassadress). Anyone involved in edit warring about this and reverting the one or the other, was in the wrong in doing so.
  • Since the current version has "actor" I will not change it. However, the last reverting editor complaint about diatribes included in invisible text - and rightly so. But then he added his own diatribe. Therefore I will remove this hidden comment. Str1977 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Overall, I concur with what is written above by Str1977. As noted, this terminology has been present in the article for quite sometime and is no way incorrect. The only thing I disagree with is that the reverting editor did not add his or her own diatribe, he or she reinstated a hidden information note that has been in place since 2007, as a point to inform any passing editors of the rationales in using the term "actor". Such notes are often inserted in articles to clarify reasoning for an issue or necessity. Returning them doesn't qualify as edit-warring. I do definitely agree about removing the inappropriate note inserted previously by AVM. LaVidaLoca (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the one hidden text is just bad as the other. And it is not needed. If someone comes along and in good faith changes things to "actress", there is no harm done. The problem is not good faith edits but the editwarring. Str1977 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be your POV. It is exceptionally bad faith to pop in, remove the note that actually deters edit warring and call it that. What's really incorrect is to call something "edit warring" when it does not come anywhere near meeting that definition. This may get changed once a month or so, editors revert it and life goes on. The only edit warring going on here is your coming in, removing the note and casting the blame of edit warring on someone else. Sorry it annoys you, but it actually serves the purpose of averting such issues most of the time. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break for editing

FWIW, I found it odd to see her described as an actor instead of (more precise) actress in the first sentence, and was going to change it, but figured I'd check here first. Sad to see that so much time has been spent on this question! --76.197.167.146 (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with 76.197 on this. She is more usually referred to as an 'actress' in reliable sources (therefore 'actress' is preferable per WP:NPOV) and 'actress' is no less correct linguistically than 'actor'. Certainly 'actor' is gender-neutral, but so what? The awards she has won generally use 'actress' so it is apparently not an unacceptable term in her profession. I've changed it in the article and removed the patronising comment. --hippo43 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Except. This wording is used by consensus. Multiple editors have supported it. You can't simply come in, say "Hey, I agree with the IP. I don't care what you guys think, I'm changing it." If you honestly want to start a discussion to determine editor consensus on this, then you must start a discussion to garner consensus before ignoring it and acting. If you don't care to bother with a consensus discussion, then do not act on your own against consensus to remove it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Wildhartlivie, I don't see consensus here at all. I see a handful of editors on either side of the debate. Multiple editors have also supported 'actress'. More importantly, Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) supports using 'actress', while the basis for using 'actor' seems to largely be the essay (not policy) WP:Gender-neutral language, which seeks 'clarity and precision'. In this case, 'actress' is obviously clearer and more precise - actor is more ambiguous. Jolie herself has frequently used both. I've changed it back, in line with WP:NPOV. If you disagree with my edit, I'm more than happy to discuss why, but simply reverting because you think there was a previous consensus for your view is not a strong argument. --hippo43 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This section remains intact to document discussion about a previous consensus. No determination has ever been made to change it back. The simple issue here is that previous consensus had supported this usage, and since that time there has been occasional debate over it. Not seeing a consensus to change it is not the same thing as initiating an actual debate to overturn a previous consensus. Nitpicky? Yes, but that's the whole issue regarding consensus. Either formally open a consensus determining discussion separate and apart from flyby comments here to settle the question. Otherwise, it's just that - flyby reversion and no real discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The operative guideline here is WP:ENGVAR (specifically WP:RETAIN). The article has one term which is not incorrect. The term doesn't assert anything about the subject that the other term doesn't assert, so WP:NPOV is not relevant. To change to the other term is a choice of style, and unless there is a strong consensus to change an issue of style, just leave it alone. Gimmetrow 02:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Gimmetrow, I don't see how WP:ENGVAR is relevant here, as this isn't an issue of national varieties of English. WP:NPOV applies to all articles - this article needs to reflect what reliable sources say. As far as I can tell, reliable sources in all varieties of English predominantly use 'actress'. Although 'actor' is not really incorrect, it is less clear, therefore ambiguous to some readers, and not what reliable sources use. In any case, the original version of the article in 2001 used 'actress', so that is what we should retain, no?
Wildhartlivie, where is the consensus you're referring to? I can see a discussion here with editors on both sides but no consensus in the discussion, or in the article's history. As there is no apparent consensus, and no obvious reason to go against policy, we should stick to what policy supports. If you want an actual debate on it, I'm all ears.
'Actress' is clear and unambiguous - to some people 'actor' implies 'male person who acts', therefore 'actress' benefits readers. For all these reasons, I've changed it back to 'actress', and again I'm happy to discuss it here, but the discussion should be based on policy.
--hippo43 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) And each time you change it back, you are edit-warring. WP:BRD suggests being bold and making a change, and if it is reverted, then begin to discuss. You short circuit that process by saying "I don't see it, I'm changing it again. But yeah, I'll talk about it although I've already acted on it again." There's no good faith in that and you're not looking at policy in doing that. The history shows that the regular editors of this page have consistently supported the usage of the word actor and have all changed it back to that wording each time a new editor pops up here to question the usage of the word. Who are the editors who have consistently supported the usage of actor in this section of discussion alone? Let's see: Ms. Sarita, Lova Falk, EnemyOfTheState, JGXenite, 23skidoo, User:LaVidaLoca and myself - all of whom have used rational arguments and cited policy and guidelines in doing so. Who spoke against it? Antiedman, who posted one comment on this page that said "In English the use of the word Actor to pertain to persons of the female gender is improper usage and the word Actress should always be used. Also the words Actor and Actress are proper nouns and should be capitalized. So I have and will continue to change the word Actor (when pertaining to women) to Actress." Not a lot of policy or logic in that and that was a declaration of intent to act whether others agree or not. All of his edits to this page were edit warring. Vilepluume, who didn't bother to sign his post, made 23 total edits to Wikipedia and had multiple vandalism warnings, who posted about her being a female and females are called actress. AVM who also argued that she's a woman, actress is what it should be, but mostly rallied about gender neutrality and against the note explaining why it was used, and inserted this diatribe into the article. Str1977 stopped by to comment on the hidden note but had to admit one usage was as correct as the other. IP 76.197.167.146 said he thought it odd, but otherwise lamented the energy wasted on the discussion. There's no way to determine if the rest of the edits from the IP were the same person. Then there's you and you want to talk policy. So okay, but it would help for you to bring policy that does not support usage of the term.

The section Gimmetrow is referring to in WP:ENGVAR is specifically WP:RETAIN, which addresses leaving the language usage as it exists without a conclusive consensus to otherwise change it. WP:MOS#Gender-neutral language says "gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision" and then directs the reader to WP:GENDER, the essay to supplement that, says "Examples of non-neutral language that can often be easily avoided are: Uncommon gender-marked terms (conductress, career woman, male nurse, aviatrix)." That also links to Gender neutral language, which specifically discusses the "-ess" words: Gender-neutral language, gender-inclusive language, or gender neutrality is language use that aims at minimizing assumptions regarding the gender of human referents. For example, this may include replacing words such as chairman and stewardess with terms such as chairperson and flight attendant."

As for the actual definition of the word "actor", the article itself discusses this:

"The word actor refers to a person who acts regardless of sex, while actress refers specifically to a female person who acts; therefore a female can be both. The Oxford English Dictionary states that originally "actor" was used for both sexes. The English word actress does not derive from the Latin actrix, probably not even by way of French actrice; according to the Oxford English Dictionary, actress was "probably formed independently" in English. As actress is a specifically feminine word, some feminists assert that the word is sexist. Gender-neutral usage of actor has re-emerged in modern English, especially when referring to male and female performers collectively, but actress remains the common term used in major acting awards given to female recipients and is still common in general usage."

Gender-neutrality is something the project encourages and would like to see widely implemented. It's curious that the objections to the use of "actor" are mostly based on objecting to neutrality. It's also interesting that aside from the IP and perhaps yourself (although I am not sure), the rest are not from the U.S. I'm not sure what that means, but it is interesting. Be that as it may, I'm quite sure a request for comments would support the gender neutral language usage. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith on my part. Not surprisingly I don't agree that it is edit-warring to change it to 'actress' - it is supported by policy, it is the most common term used in reliable sources, it is the most common current term, eben in the profession itself, and it is the original term used in this article. Repeated changes to 'actor' when there is no consensus or basis in policy strike me as edit-warring. Characterising my edits as 'flyby reversions' avoids addressing their validity. That I haven't contributed much to this article in the past is irrelevant.
Regular editors of this page do not own it. Their contributions are not inherently more valuable than others. I'd prefer to discuss the issues rather than attacking individual editors. There may well be policies that support using 'actor' but I haven't found them yet. If there are (rather than guidelines or essays) can you point them out?
The Manual of Style is not a policy, but a guideline. It says "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". In this case, I don't believe it can. As I explained above, 'actress' is clearer and more preicse in this case than 'actor'. Do you disagree?
I'm aware of the sections Gimmetrow is referring to. WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN deal explicitly with national varieties of the English language. This discussion is nothing to do with varieties of English. However, if it were, WP:RETAIN would support retaining 'actress' as this was the first version used! I'm not sure what your point is about editors being from the US or elsewhere. Can you explain?
The essay (not policy or even guideline) WP:GENDER supports avoiding uncommon gender-specific terms such as aviatrix. As far as I can see, it does not support avoiding extremely common terms such as 'actress.' Have I missed something there?
Gender_neutral_language is a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, not a policy, or even a guideline/essay. It has no weight in this discussion. Similarly, I don't really care what the wikipedia article actor says on terminology - it is not a policy or a reliable source. 'Actress' is clearly the preferred word in current reliable sources, and in the profession itself. Do you disagree?
You wrote "Gender-neutrality is something the project encourages and would like to see widely implemented." Is this supported by policy somewhere? For the record, I am all in favour of gender-neutral language where possible - I can't speak for others but my objection has nothing to do with 'objecting to meutrality'. Most names of occupations do not imply that the person is male, as there is usually no specific female form. However, 'actor' to many people still implies 'male actor', because 'actress' is still so widely used to mean 'female actor'. For all these reasons, 'actress' is obviously preferable here. --hippo43 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"I don't agree that it is edit-warring to change it to 'actress' - it is supported by policy?" What policy is that? If you're referring to edit-warring, changing the terminology used even while someone is trying to discuss that with you fairly qualifies as edit-warring in spirit, if not in 3RR count, especially when your change was reverted based on the fact that no consensus had been determined here regarding your objection. If you're referring to the use of the term "actress", there is no such policy. I don't have such disdain for MOS recommendations, they are there because there is a Wikipedia-wide desire for standardization of aspects of article style and format. It's not something to particularly dismiss. Policies are there for various other reasons, many of them for legality purposes, others to try and maintain some sort of behavioral standards so something this huge can somehow be managed. MOS wouldn't refer readers to an essay adjunct to the guideline without cause. You and I both know that policies do not address what essentially boils down to content dispute, or at least I assume you do since you've been on Wikipedia more than a day. The guidelines have been cited as part of the discussion. There is little on Wikipedia regarding article content that is settled or resolved because there is a specific policy that addresses it. Reliable sources also support the use of the word actor, and at one point, a number of reliable sources were posted here and in the article to establish that.
My comment about the origin of the editors was an observation, I even said I don't know what that means, but I find it interesting. And I do. I did not refer to you as making flyby reversions, I was addressing the the overall incidents where someone, usually an IP, changes this wording, or various other wordings, without rationale and might, or might not, post a comment. And I was not attacking the editors whose comments I discussed, I was pointing out the rationales and logic, or lack thereof, in their posts, their lack of experience in the process here and how that confounds any reasonable debate. However, I have to say it's exceedingly tiresome that when a discussion goes beyond a couple sentences, someone trots out WP:OWN. Maybe regular editors on a given page are no more important than the ones who pop in, edit and pop back out, but the regular editors are the ones who participate in most discussions about content, watchlist the article, defend it against vandalism and discuss whatever issues are raised here. If a body of editors have agreed along the way about some aspect of an article, whether or not a formal call for consensus occurs, that establishes the point. Was there ever a formal request for comments to determine consensus? No, but there has been general agreement amongst the editors who frequent the page to retain this wording. If you want to open a formal request for comments, then please, do so. This is twice I've suggested it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, WP:OWN is commonly trotted out when an editor doesn't address the issue and says something like "regular editors like it this way, so go away". Obviously I'm exaggerating, but you get my point. I have a lot of respect for editors who have put a lot of work into a particular article, but sometimes that clouds their judgment, and they resist change because they have become attached to having things their way. I think I bring a fresh-ish pair of eyes to this, and I have no axe to grind here. To me there's no real argument. It should be 'actress'. Insisting on 'actor' is really trying to make a point, in the face of overwhelming use of 'actress' in reliable sources. There is no need a request for comment on such a small point, so I won't be making one. If other editors care, they will have seen the recent changes in their watch-lists and can join this discussion. Rather than rehashing procedural arguments at great length, I'd prefer to deal with the issue and move on. For me, it is a small point which needs little discussion.
The policies I'm referring to are WP:NPOV (as explained above - I was trying to avoid repeating myself in my last reply) and, to a lesser extent, WP:V and WP:NOR - the three core content policies. NPOV requires articles to proportionately reflect reliable sources. Reliable sources overwhelmingly use 'actress' when referring to Angelina Jolie. Do you disagree? WP:V requires statements to be verifiable. Similarly, the same majority of reliable sources verify that Jolie is an actress. WP:NOR requires articles to not include original research. When reliable sources say Jolie is an 'actress', it is a form of original research to decide "'actor' means more or less the same thing, so we'll use that instead."
As for the origin of editors, I wasn't being hostile, I just wondered what you meant, and still do. I don't know if there's a connection between their origin and their point of view. You may be correct that a body of editors was happy with 'actor' for a while, but before that, editors were happy with 'actress'. I can't see any consensus for that original change being reached in the discussion.
I don't have disdain for the MoS, but it is only a guideline, edited and maintained by those who care a lot about style. If that essay (or similar points) were considered important enough to include in policy (or a guideline), it would have happened. The MoS linking to an essay is not at all an endorsement of the essay as a guideline. Moreover, the MoS doesn't actually support using 'actor', and nor does the essay it links to! 'Actress' is not an "uncommon" term, and is clearer and more precise than 'actor'.
Policies, however, address content, and are far more significant. As far as I can see, the policies support 'actress' and there has been no argument presented yet that they support 'actor'. --hippo43 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't the one trotting out WP:OWN, you were. I happen to know that at least three of the editors who normally weigh in on this discussion are away on holiday at the moment and would otherwise be leaving a comment. One of them already has (Gimmetrow). Another is very involved in addressing a FAR. I will, however, likely open an RfC on this, since your position has been challenged at this point by two other editors, yet you've gone ahead and reverted the change even in the midst of this discussion, which isn't exactly kosher in my book. WP:V or WP:NOR do not cover your position, this is a point which is not addressed by either of those policies. Reliable sources also refer to her as an actor, some of those are listed in an earlier section and at one time, there were reliable sources present in the article to support it. Policy does not address this and it is misconstruing what policies address to say that they support the use of actress over actor. Since you are the dissenting voice, it falls upon you to cite what policies and how they address this question. When reliable sources use both, which are verifiable, those points fails to support your stance. Please explain how WP:NOR would even come close to addressing the use of actress over actor, both of which refer to a person who acts, one which only refers to a female actor. Screen Actors Guild stopped using the term actress a long time ago, which indicates to me that they have chosen to abandon antiquated terminology created in an era where equality wasn't a factor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think if you take a step back you will realise you are being ridiculous. You are obsessing over procedural stuff about RfCs etc and have presented no argument based on policy for the position you support. I am well aware of who brought up WP:OWN - I thought you would be able to understand my point, but maybe I misjudged it. To be clear, I was saying that the reason WP:OWN gets trotted out is because editors (like you in this case) resist change for no good reason and fail to address the issue.
The reason that WP:NOR is relevant is that a great majority of sources use 'actress'. To substitute a term ('actor') which has a very similar but not synonymous meaning, based on the premise that 'they mean more or less the same thing, so we'll use the one that suits our agenda' is not a position supported by sources. This may seem a tenuous interpretation of WP:NOR, but can you present an interpretation of any policy which supports using 'actor'? You have offered nothing so far.
Of course reliable sources refer to both 'actor' and 'actress' - it is very easy for either side to provide examples here. You wrote "Policy does not address this", yet WP:NPOV explicitly covers it. It dictates that this article has to reflect proprtionately what the RSs say, and should not include tiny minority views. Reliable sources overwhelmingly use 'actress' - for example, a Google search for "actor Angelina Jolie" gives about 9,000 hits. "Actress Angelina Jolie" brings in 157,000. 'Actress' is obviously the appropriate word. Your attempt to insist on prescriptive 'neutral' language ignores this basic tenet of wikipedia, and you have still failed to address this central point here. It would be simple to add numerous references to the lead which confirm she is an actress, though it would ugly up the article.
You have tried to insist on retaining a previous version pending the outcome of this discussion. In that case, the original version, with 'actress', should be retained, as there was never a consensus reached in discussion to change it to 'actor'. Do you disagree?
The Screen Actors Guild may not use the word 'actress', but what this "indicates" to you is irrelevant. They are not an authority on what language should be used here. Numerous industry bodies use 'actress', including most of the major awards. As with reliable sources, you are cherry-picking an example which (at least by your baseless interpretation) supports your ludicrous view. That awards such as the Oscars differentiate between 'actor' (meaning 'male actor') and 'actress' only confirms the ambiguity that would result from using 'actor' here, an ambiguity which should be obvious to sensible people. --hippo43 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm finished discussing this with you. You've devolved into unacceptable comments - "ridiculous", "ludicrous view". You've failed to show where WP:RS supports your claims, except to say it. And you're now charging there is an agenda here to support your charge that the use of the word actor is a POV. It would also be simple to add numerous references to the lead which support the use of the term actor, but there was agreement in an earlier section not to do so. I will open a RfC tomorrow, but I will not reply to you in this thread again because of what I feel borders on attacks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, your view on this is ridiculous/ludicrous. That is in no way an attack on you, just on your opinion in this case. If you took it personally, that was not my intention. I note that again you have not addressed the issue. Have you read WP:NPOV? (I don't think I mentioned WP:RS) I have summarised the relevant part in my previous comments. One pertinent passage: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."
As for "And you're now charging there is an agenda here to support your charge that the use of the word actor is a POV," I don't know what you mean. Can you explain?
You wrote "It would also be simple to add numerous references to the lead which support the use of the term actor" - that was exactly my point. However, you have still not yet addressed the fact that an enormous majority of reliable sources use the word 'actress'. Again, if you have an argument that supports using 'actor' and which is based on policy, I'd love to hear it. --hippo43 (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Brangelina stub article/Now full article

As I stated to Dalejenkins, who is linking to this stub article, ‎this article was redirected in the first place because it would have been a stub, and because the Celebrity section of the Supercouple article has more information on it than this stub does. It is a stub not likely to be expanded upon any time soon, unless Dalejenkins is going to expand it. Plus, these types of articles have a tendency to be targeted for deletion. Just look at the problems the TomKat and Posh and Becks articles have faced with that. Though the TomKat article has not yet had an official deletion debate, it did recently have its named changed to cater to those thinking about deleting it. Dalejenkins says that the Brangelina article should be linked to even though it is a stub. I ask how?

Dalejenkins is linking to this stub throughout the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie articles, when the stub says absolutely nothing about the couple that their articles already do not say. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. This seems very much an issue of overkill. I'm personally not supportive of such articles as Brangelina, TomKat or Posh and Becks. There is nothing to be added to such articles that cannot, or should not, be covered in the individual person articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I could build on the TomKat article with more information not found in their individual articles, but I have been lazy on that. These days, though, I would not be too bothered by seeing that article deleted. However, it seems that some editors would rather have most of their relationship put into the TomKat article, which is why the Tom Cruise article tells the reader to look there and does not have much about his relationship with Katie Holmes. Despite that, the Katie Holmes article has just as much information about the couple as the TomKat article does. The Posh and Becks article has more of a reason for existing, though, since it is not only based on the popular term "Posh and Becks" but also a book about that couple. That is mostly why it survived two deletion debates (due to both of those factors).
The Brangelina article? As I stated, it is a stub and I do not see the point of linking to it as long as it is a stub with no information that is not already found in their individual articles. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No longer a stub - no longer a problem. Just because somebody MAY target the article for deletion, it doesn't mean we should ignore it. Dalejenkins | 21:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
As I stated on your talk page, I still do not see the point, since all you did was take information already found in their individual articles and divide it up into the Brangelina article. Notice that the Celebrity section of the Supercouple article about Pitt and Jolie at least mentions a little bit of stuff about their relationship/thoughts about their relationship not already found in either of their individual articles? That is the point of having supercouple articles and articles on different topics (besides their notability). Even if you add the bit from the Supercouple article in about them, it does not stop the fact that the Brangelina article is very redundant.
I am not going to redirect it or seek its deletion, but you should be very concerned about other editors wanting to do so or going about doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
With the Name section, I see you already took a bit from the Supercouple article about this. But it is still like I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, then if you're not going to delete it, then there's no need to woory. We'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it. IMO, it passes WP:NOTE. Dalejenkins | 23:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It having valid sources which could be seen by some editors here as being a notable article is not the problem. The problems with that article is what I stated on your talk page and at their talk pages. Plenty of celebrity couples could have couple articles here if valid sources are mostly all that is needed for that; that is not the point. Does the fact that the media dubbed Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie "Brangelina" and a supercouple mean that they are notable enough as a couple to have their own Wikipedia couple article? If so, that is beside the point. Even if they are also a notable couple for their humanitarianism. If having the Brangelina article was done to put most of the information about that couple there as a way to cut down on information about the couple in their individual articles and have their individual articles conform to not being too long, then you would have more of a valid reason for letting the Brangelina article exist.
I am not crossing any bridge on this. That will be you. Linking to that article in Pitt and Jolie's articles is beyond redundant and really not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the links in the lead section and the "children" section. There is no indication of a consensus to include these, and because there has been an expression of opposition, it should be left out until a consensus is reached. Please remember that this is a long standing featured article so even minor changes can potentially affect it's featured article suitability. The lead section should be a summary of the most notable points about the subject. The fact that the media uses the terms as a gimmicky type of shorthand does not mean it's widely enough used around the world to constitute being part of the most notable things that could be said. In the children's section it's even worse and it's just plain unacceptable. It's a colloquailism and to use it in a header as a legitimate term is inappropriate. I've changed it to "The children" but I realize that isn't the best possible option, but it is better than "Brangelina's children". Please wait until you have consensus to add this. Looking at the Brangelina article, there is nothing of significance there that is not already in the Jolie article, so to me it seems pointless. Rossrs (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree, these changes today do not enhance this article in the least and as Rossrs stated, is without consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a separate Brangelina article is rather pointless, because it offers no additional information, but that should probably be determined on the talk page there. However, I don't agree with the new "See also" link in the relationship section of this article - there really is nothing to see there. I think it's more than enough if Brangelina is linked in the last paragraph. EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I encourage all editors working on and or watching the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie articles to also watch the Brangelina article; just like these two articles, it is subject to vandalism and unsourced claims...and even more so because it is not protected from IP editors. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Age

How old is she??. in 2009 she would be 34 as on wikipedia. I am sorry to not agree with that but she is sure older than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.235.153 (talk • contribs)

Can you find a reliable source for something different? Gimmetrow 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Brangelina

This is so tabloidy "they were photographed in April but did not confirm...." why not just get to the point. Its totally unnecessary to say "she confirmed the relationship on January 11..." when in fact she gave birth four months later, so obviously it should be mentioned that she conceived a child in the summer of '05 rather than listing that some papparazi took pictures of them in whatever month. Excuseme99 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Because to say she conceived a child in the summer of '05 without supporting documentation based on what? - baby born on this date minus 9 months yields some arbitrary conception date? is the very definition of original research and is not permitted. Because the relationship had not yet been acknowledged, noting the build up to a confirmation is an accurate reflection of the situation, it is not tabloidy. What would be tabloidy would be the synthesis of a statement saying they must have been having sex long before they they acknowledged a relationship because Excuseme99 figures the baby was conceived in the summer of '05. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

...currently lives with Brad Pitt...

Where exactly is that? Holywood? ~ R.T.G 22:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more like wherever they lay their hats. They have been in Africa, France, New Orleans, Pitt has several properties in the general Los Angeles area and in rental property near film locations. Very few actors actually live in Hollywood. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting and you should add it. I thought they had moved to one of the places they adopted a child from and I guess she did at that time. ~ R.T.G 07:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Children's rights

Isn't she violating children's rights every time she adopts a kid from another country? I've heard something like that and I know for sure that in the UN rights convention says that children have a right to stay in the country they were born, with the cultural roots they have. She can adopt children from other countries because she has money. Should this article mention the controversy of her so called "help to the poor"? I would like to read about this here. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.51.211 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're asking two different things. The first is the children's rights question. Perhaps there is some modicum of controversy over the overall question of people adopting children from another country - something that exists on a much wider scale than in regard to Angelina Jolie. I'm not aware of a specific controversy regarding her. However, my response to that would be that it takes money for anyone to adopt a child, especially one from another country. If you're implying she bought children somehow, that is out of line. Beyond that, how is being forced to live in an orphanage in a place where there are not enough people to adopt orphans protecting the well-being of a child?

The other question regards what you call "help to the poor" controversy. What controversy? Are you saying that you dispute that she has worked diligently, at her own expense, to advocate for better living conditions, education, health care, adequate food and shelter and safety of children in under-privileged countries in her role with the United Nations? Are you saying that she and Pitt have not donated millions of dollars out of their own pockets, to fund charities to help provide those same needs both in the United States (think New Orleans) and across the world - Cambodia, Somalia and Darfur, for examples? There is no controversy about her motivations and her actual good acts.

Ultimately, Wikipedia does not do primary research or investigative journalism. It is an encyclopedia, one with the goal of publishing articles that reflect what is written and published elsewhere about specifics. We don't make the news. If it doesn't exist elsewhere, it won't be written about here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I know there is picture that she has a better profile in flickr.Even it is used in tr.wikipedia.org.I couldnt add it.This is from a photoshoot in 2003.Photographer is Robert Erdmann. How can ı add it?--94.123.118.1 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the copyright requirements are on tr.wikipedia, but the page of origination for the photo used in the infobox here isn't a free-use image, which is true of all the images used her page here. It is a lovely picture, but it wouldn't pass a copyright test for here. Sorry. :( Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But why it wouldnt pass? anyway but thanks for informations. ı learned wikipedia has really different rules for every country.--94.123.118.1 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC):)

There are free-use images and there are fair use images. We don't use fair-use images when there are plenty of free-use images available. The one you're talking about would only qualify as fair-use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Wildhart, perhaps make it more clear what you're saying. The image is tagged CC-BY-SA/2.0, and is so tagged on flickr where it has been since May 2007. That licensing is, as far as I know, a free license and not WP:Non-free content. So what you're saying is, the image looks professional and you suspect the flickr user doesn't actually own the image or have the right to license it CC-BY-SA/2.0? If that's true (that it's a case of flickr-laundering), I don't think that image would be usable anywhere that complies with international copyright treaties, so it's not really "different rules for every country". Gimmetrow 01:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on the profile of the uploader here, I don't think the uploader had the authority to release the photos under any sort of license. It looks like someone's favorite images uploaded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it looked like flickr-laundering. Gimmetrow 05:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

here has a pic that isnt professional. ı mean it has a pic that she was in a press conference for Lara Croft:The Cradle of Life. but ı am not gonna say can you use it because ı understood what you mean.these pics are fair-use images. thanks!--94.123.116.212 (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


I would like to add to the article by discussing Angelina Jolie's salary

We can improve the article adding her salary as this is major headlines news. Here is some links below: http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE4B47D620081206 http://www.thenumbers.com/people/AJOLI.php http://money.uk.msn.com/guides/salarycentre/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=8559578&dub-gallery-photo-number=8 http://www.mywage.org/zimbabwe/main/vip-celebrities-pay/celebrity-actors-pay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.20.15 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Her earnings are included in the article already. Rossrs (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Filmography

I think we must add Kung Fu Panda 2: The Kaboom of Doom to her filmography list. Because she is definetly gonna be in that movie.--İradeninKuvveti (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The film is not in any phase of production at this time, which is the hard line for inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for information--İradeninKuvveti (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

UHMM YOURE MISSING ALOT OF HER MOVIES!!!!!!!!!

YOURE MISSING: SLEDGE THE UNTOLD STORY 2005


We Are the Future - You Are the Answer 2006 Trudell 2006


The Day After Peace 2008

The Mercenary: Love and HonOR 2009


anD IT MAKES ME REALLY MAD WHEN I DON'T SEE HER FULL BIOGRAPHY SO PLEASE GET OF YOUR BUT AND GET WORKING —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fergie41 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the only one I can verify is Sledge, which was a brief cameo appearance. Can't add what can't be verified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sentence is horrible"

"Jolie and Pitt have three adopted children, Maddox, Pax, and Zahara, as well as three biological children, Shiloh, Knox, and Vivienne." - This sentence is horrible. Someone fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.224.163 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If only you'd asked nicely, but .... nah, I don't think so. While you're barking out orders, here's a couple for you. Make a suggestion. Do it now. Rossrs (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Typo Needs Fixing

Last sentence of the "In the Media" section: "She also topped Forbes' annual Celebrity 100 list in 2009;[91] she had previously be ranked No. 14 in 2007,[92] and No. 3 in 2008."

She had previously "been" ranked, is likely the word that was intended. I would've just fixed it myself but the article is locked. Xprivate eyex (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Add 2010 Haiti earthquake donation?

Could someone with access add that Jolie and Pitt donated US$1,000,000 to relief efforts for the 2010 Haiti earthquake (maybe after the sentence "In 2006, Jolie and Pitt flew to Haiti and visited a school supported by Yéle Haïti, a charity founded by Haitian-born hip hop musician Wyclef Jean." in the Humanitarian Work section)? Possible citation is here: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20337201,00.html 87.212.204.99 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

TV GUEST APPEARANCES

can somebody put the list of all her guest appearances... please!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.227.146 (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. She has not had guest appearances on television productions and we do not list occasions when Access Hollywood runs a spot on her or she appears on The Tonight Show. Her television work is already listed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angelina_Jolie/Archive_7&oldid=1140384565"