This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
A 2008 New York Times article “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” states that Jolie is actually a highly skillful manipulator of both the media and her public image. The article states that through an uncanny savvy at such manipulation, Jolie was able to re-create her image from a “former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.”
NY Times states that sources in the media involved in bidding for photos after the birth of her biological children revealed terms of the negations included legally binding the winning bidder so they must agree to censor remarks made in the story to omit anything disparaging about the couple. Further, the negotiated restrictions were to apply not just for the resulting photo spread and article, but to all subsequent articles issued by that publication or media group. (The winning bidder was People Magazine, owned by Time, Inc.)
Similar restrictions were previously bargained for by Jolie in her earlier career. This was the period immediately following Jolie’s adoption of first son Maddox, the ensuing divorce from Billy Bob Thorton, and the publicly made pleas of concern about Jolie’s mental stability made by her recently re-estranged father, Jon Voight. Those earlier attempts at restrictive negotiations and content control with the press were to be in exchange for an exclusive photo shoot with Jolie and her then newly adopted son.
When negotiations broke down, the photo agency was later tipped off, again by Jolie herself, about where and when she could be seen playing with her son in public. The resulting pictures of Jolie and Maddox playing outdoors, sympathetically conveyed to the public the image of a young, newly divorced, starlet mother foiled by paparazzi in her attempt at private play time with her adopted son.
Through similar techniques, Jolie has successfully managed to shift public perception of herself and to raise her celebrity likeability or “Q factor” from 13 (during her Billy Bob Thorton era) up past the average rating of 18 for female stars, and further up to her current rating of 24 (during her motherhood, charity ambassador, and Brad Pitt era), armed with only “a cell phone, her manager and her lawyer.”
Source: “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”. NY Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21angelina.html?_r=1 63.226.211.112 ( talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Jolie officially doesn't have an agent, but her "manager" used to be an agent (as well actor, producer, etc.)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Papparazzo (
talk)
10:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Not done No explanation of what needs to be changed. ~~ [ジャム][ t - c 10:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Clarification: Please add the following new section to the article and include the source, which is the NY Times. Thanks.
Changing Public Image and Media Perception
A 2008 New York Times article “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” states that Jolie is actually a highly skillful manipulator of both the media and her public image. The article states that through an uncanny savvy at such manipulation, Jolie was able to re-create her image from a “former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.”
NY Times states that sources in the media involved in bidding for photos after the birth of her biological children revealed terms of the negations included legally binding the winning bidder so they must agree to censor remarks made in the story to omit anything disparaging about the couple. Further, the negotiated restrictions were to apply not just for the resulting photo spread and article, but to all subsequent articles issued by that publication or media group. (The winning bidder was People Magazine, owned by Time, Inc.)
Similar restrictions were previously bargained for by Jolie in her earlier career. This was the period immediately following Jolie’s adoption of first son Maddox, the ensuing divorce from Billy Bob Thorton, and the publicly made pleas of concern about Jolie’s mental stability made by her recently re-estranged father, Jon Voight. Those earlier attempts at restrictive negotiations and content control with the press were to be in exchange for an exclusive photo shoot with Jolie and her then newly adopted son.
When negotiations broke down, the photo agency was later tipped off, again by Jolie herself, about where and when she could be seen playing with her son in public. The resulting pictures of Jolie and Maddox playing outdoors, sympathetically conveyed to the public the image of a young, newly divorced, starlet mother foiled by paparazzi in her attempt at private play time with her adopted son.
Through similar techniques, Jolie has successfully managed to shift public perception of herself and to raise her celebrity likeability or “Q factor” from 13 (during her Billy Bob Thorton era) up past the average rating of 18 for female stars, and further up to her current rating of 24 (during her motherhood, charity ambassador, and Brad Pitt era), armed with only “a cell phone, her manager and her lawyer.”
Source: “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”. NY Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21angelina.html?_r=1 63.226.211.112 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
63.226.212.48 ( talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have recently added several smaller awards to the filmography; it does already include all the awards listed in the awards table below. User:Wildhartlivie has suggested that it would probably be best to then remove the awards section entirely. I agree that the table is rather redundant, since the awards are already listed in the infobox and the filmography. On the other hand, I think the awards table does serve a purpose to provide a quick overview of her major awards/nominations. Personally, I don't have a real preference (remove the awards section, or keep it), so I'm interested what others think about it. EnemyOfTheState| talk 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think having the awards in the filmography table makes the filmography more difficult to read, since many of the fields end up empty while others end up with 5+ lines. Before the awards and filmography were partially combined, they were not redundant, and were, in my opinion, easier to read. The separate awards table is in the format typical when a stand-alone article is created for the awards (See most any artist awards list at WP:FL, eg this one). Gimmetrow 01:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess there is no clear consensus, though the majority seems to be in favor of removing the awards section. Maybe a solution could be to cut the table, and to create a sub-article that contains both a more detailed filmography (including directors, co-stars, box office gross), as well as a list of her awards and nominations comparable to the Gwen Stefani example above? EnemyOfTheState| talk
There is no mention of the fact that she became pregnant with Pitt's child while he was still married to Jennifer, despite her protestations she would never do such a thing. This seems like an important fact to leave out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.43.129 ( talk) 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well if look at the time line of her pregancy she was clearly pregnant while brad was still married to his wife so how is that unsourccd gossip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nillarse ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Is she religious? I think she's some kind of agnostic or atheist even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.192.184 ( talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the format could be tweaked a little. Perhaps a 'personal life' and 'career' heading with several sub-headings. Teatreez ( talk) 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the following sentence:
She attended her wedding in black leather pants and a white shirt, upon which she had written the groom's name in her blood. [1]
I looked through the source and couldn't find anything about this. I may have missed it,can someone verify this? It seems kind of extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwake20 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The movie Salt is currently in production, listed through IMDB, and now has its own Wikipedia page. Why can't it be listed on Jolie filmography? The information is there, it should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.142.249 ( talk) 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
the article says that she has been long estranged from her father and that the tomb raider movie was an attempt at reconciliation. THIS IS NOT TRUE. angelina thanked him in her golden globe and oscar speeches in the 90s. there are also MANY, MANY photographs of her and her father together and looking happy throughout the years. OBVIOUSLY they were not "long estranged" whatever source says so is inaccurate. jon came to both of her weddings, attended numerous award ceremonies with her and was often seen with her in public. this needs to be changed.
here are the photos http://wireimage.com/searchresults.aspx?cbi=2177&s=angelina%20jolie&sfld=C
they don't look estranged to me!
The fall out between Ms Jolie and her father is based on a disagreement they had when Ms Jolie was submitting papers for the adoption of her son Madox. She had a lot of stress and at one point felt Mr Voight was slow in signing some papers needed for the adoption. You could hardly call that a 'major disagreement'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwrd ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
ALSO, the article says her parents separated in 1976. that is false, whatever source says so is untrue. how do you explain all the family photos?
most sources say that marcheline and jon voight split in 1978 (which is the truth) even people magazine says so and that is a very reliable source. if they separated in 1976, angelina would have been one year old.
here are family photos that show angelina and she's obvious not one year old:
http://images2.sina.com/english/entertainment/p/2009/0204/U135P200T1D216063F8DT20090204200252.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBfoQbBYpw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNm7P0YdeFo&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqtsm_Oa5tg&feature=related
i try to make edits but wildhartlive keeps reverting them for no reason
Excuseme99 ( talk) 04:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have reverted your edits, except they are for very valid reasons. They are incorrect and constitute guess work and sleuthing in the absence of valid sourcing. I'm growing weary of reverting and adding third party, verifiable and reliable sources in order to further support statements in this article regarding Jolie's relationship with her father and when her parents separated. From what I can tell, you appear to have an idea about the dates and whether or not she was estranged from Voight. Per the definition of estrangement: the feeling of being alienated from other people, a state of separation between persons or groups. It does not mean they are enemies or that they refuse to see each other or be in the same place. The information about the year the Voights separated comes from an article from Vogue magazine in which Jolie participated. Are you saying Jolie what - lied about it? Why would she do that? Do you think that because a couple is separated that they wouldn't speak, be somewhere for some given reason together, or be in contact because of the kids?? What do we have as opposition to an article in which the information came from Jolie? Your conclusions from one photo. Yes, they certainly can have separated in 1976 and not divorce until two years later. There is a difference between separating and divorcing.
The last edit included a link given as reference to one page showing a picture of Jolie, as a quite young toddler, likely no older than a year old or so, sitting on Voight's lap, next to her mother with James Haven on mom's lap. They appear to be in a waiting area somewhere. Jolie was born in June, 1975. The article had stated that her parents separated in 1976. The photo is offered as some sort of proof that "Some sources say that Jolie's parents separated in 1976, although this is contradicted by many others that say they separated in 1978 as well as photographs that show the family looking together and looking happy when Jolie was older." There is no context given for the photo, or if they are "looking together and looking happy", and it certainly offers no proof that the couple was together until 1978 - when Jolie would have been three years old. For all anyone knows, this could have been taken while waiting for a court hearing regarding legal separation. It proves nothing. There is no reference offered to disprove the already sourced material that they separated in 1976. This sort of inclusion is nothing more than original research and synthesis.
A second link was added to a Wire Image page offering 17 photos of Voight with Jolie or Jolie and Haven, and is given for support of the change from text reading "Jolie has been long estranged from her father. The two tried to reconcile and he appeared with her in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)." to new text reading "Jolie is estranged from her father. The two starred together in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider in 2001. Some sources say that they had been long estranged before then, and that they attempted reconciliation during filming This, however, is contradicted by that fact that Jolie and her father made many public appearances together and appeared seemingly happy during the years prior to the film." Pardon me, but what?? The amount of time prior to Lara Croft that they were estranged isn't specific. The article actually says they reconciled and then appeared in Lara Croft and then became estranged again after that. Estrangement doesn't mean they never had any contact whatsoever, it doesn't mean there weren't times they were closer than at other times. What we're offered as allegedly proof that they weren't is basically three photos while Jolie was still a child - one from 1980, one from 1986, one from 1988. Then there were a couple from one event in 1991 and a couple from one event in 1994. The rest were posed publicity photos taken at mostly awards ceremonies after Jolie began to receive awards or premieres. The last few were taken in 2000 and 2001 - around the time Lara Croft was filmed. There is no way to conclude that they made public appearances together - only that in some cases, they were at the same event, or to discern in what ones they were "seemingly happy". This is conjecture and again, does not prove they were close, happy, or "together" prior to some given time. It's just enough. Please either provide valid and reliable third party sources or stop injecting your POV into the article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Them being estranged does not mean they never met, therefore pictures showing them together is not a contradiction. From what I understand her parents divorce was finalized in 1978, but they separated in 1976. EnemyOfTheState| talk 13:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the People article says they "split" when she was three (See http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20214047,00.html) so there you have it. If you bother to watch the youtube videos, she is a toddler in many of the photos with her parents. I highly doubt that it was at a court hearing or something---her parents were not on good terms at all after the split. Excuseme99 ( talk) 07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Who agrees that it should be kept as "actress" instead of "film actor"? Because whenever i change it to Actress, someone just reverts it and I think we should just keep it as Actress. Why should it matter? All other wikipedia articles don't have this conflict. It's not a big deal, yet some users on here are stubborn and freak when someone changes film actor to actress. Actress sounds better. Justme89 ( talk) 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I made some minor changes, mostly clean-up. I did remove two dubious claims I could not verify
There a no reliable sources for this, only stories that are apparently based on this Wikipedia article. EnemyOfTheState| talk 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the lead needs some minor tweaking, bearing in mind two things - 1. This is a featured article and 2. The lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD. I don't see anything about her being glamorous in the article, and as beauty and glamor kind of go together, I don't see why it's so important to add that she is not only beautiful but also glamorous. I don't feel this is particularly enlightening, but I'd be more comfortable with "glamorous" existing in the lead as one of the most important points if it was also given some discusion in the article. Also, I think the lead paints a fairly shallow portrait of Jolie by focussing on her physical appearance. She's also been cited as one of Time 100 most influential people, which is of more consequence than her ability to look good in photographs. Rossrs ( talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Why put such an unflattering photo of her when there is a much better photo of her under the "in the media" article? that photo looks much better.
2. Why mention her flop films (Cyborg 2, Hackers) rather than her hits (gone in sixty seconds, wanted, plus her oscar nod for changeling)?
3. Shouldn't her awards be mentioned in order of importance? and shouldn't it say "won" instead of "received"?
Excuseme99 ( talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
A 2008 New York Times article “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” states that Jolie is actually a highly skillful manipulator of both the media and her public image. The article states that through an uncanny savvy at such manipulation, Jolie was able to re-create her image from a “former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.”
NY Times states that sources in the media involved in bidding for photos after the birth of her biological children revealed terms of the negations included legally binding the winning bidder so they must agree to censor remarks made in the story to omit anything disparaging about the couple. Further, the negotiated restrictions were to apply not just for the resulting photo spread and article, but to all subsequent articles issued by that publication or media group. (The winning bidder was People Magazine, owned by Time, Inc.)
Similar restrictions were previously bargained for by Jolie in her earlier career. This was the period immediately following Jolie’s adoption of first son Maddox, the ensuing divorce from Billy Bob Thorton, and the publicly made pleas of concern about Jolie’s mental stability made by her recently re-estranged father, Jon Voight. Those earlier attempts at restrictive negotiations and content control with the press were to be in exchange for an exclusive photo shoot with Jolie and her then newly adopted son.
When negotiations broke down, the photo agency was later tipped off, again by Jolie herself, about where and when she could be seen playing with her son in public. The resulting pictures of Jolie and Maddox playing outdoors, sympathetically conveyed to the public the image of a young, newly divorced, starlet mother foiled by paparazzi in her attempt at private play time with her adopted son.
Through similar techniques, Jolie has successfully managed to shift public perception of herself and to raise her celebrity likeability or “Q factor” from 13 (during her Billy Bob Thorton era) up past the average rating of 18 for female stars, and further up to her current rating of 24 (during her motherhood, charity ambassador, and Brad Pitt era), armed with only “a cell phone, her manager and her lawyer.”
Source: “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”. NY Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21angelina.html?_r=1 63.226.211.112 ( talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Jolie officially doesn't have an agent, but her "manager" used to be an agent (as well actor, producer, etc.)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Papparazzo (
talk)
10:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Not done No explanation of what needs to be changed. ~~ [ジャム][ t - c 10:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Clarification: Please add the following new section to the article and include the source, which is the NY Times. Thanks.
Changing Public Image and Media Perception
A 2008 New York Times article “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” states that Jolie is actually a highly skillful manipulator of both the media and her public image. The article states that through an uncanny savvy at such manipulation, Jolie was able to re-create her image from a “former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.”
NY Times states that sources in the media involved in bidding for photos after the birth of her biological children revealed terms of the negations included legally binding the winning bidder so they must agree to censor remarks made in the story to omit anything disparaging about the couple. Further, the negotiated restrictions were to apply not just for the resulting photo spread and article, but to all subsequent articles issued by that publication or media group. (The winning bidder was People Magazine, owned by Time, Inc.)
Similar restrictions were previously bargained for by Jolie in her earlier career. This was the period immediately following Jolie’s adoption of first son Maddox, the ensuing divorce from Billy Bob Thorton, and the publicly made pleas of concern about Jolie’s mental stability made by her recently re-estranged father, Jon Voight. Those earlier attempts at restrictive negotiations and content control with the press were to be in exchange for an exclusive photo shoot with Jolie and her then newly adopted son.
When negotiations broke down, the photo agency was later tipped off, again by Jolie herself, about where and when she could be seen playing with her son in public. The resulting pictures of Jolie and Maddox playing outdoors, sympathetically conveyed to the public the image of a young, newly divorced, starlet mother foiled by paparazzi in her attempt at private play time with her adopted son.
Through similar techniques, Jolie has successfully managed to shift public perception of herself and to raise her celebrity likeability or “Q factor” from 13 (during her Billy Bob Thorton era) up past the average rating of 18 for female stars, and further up to her current rating of 24 (during her motherhood, charity ambassador, and Brad Pitt era), armed with only “a cell phone, her manager and her lawyer.”
Source: “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”. NY Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21angelina.html?_r=1 63.226.211.112 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
63.226.212.48 ( talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have recently added several smaller awards to the filmography; it does already include all the awards listed in the awards table below. User:Wildhartlivie has suggested that it would probably be best to then remove the awards section entirely. I agree that the table is rather redundant, since the awards are already listed in the infobox and the filmography. On the other hand, I think the awards table does serve a purpose to provide a quick overview of her major awards/nominations. Personally, I don't have a real preference (remove the awards section, or keep it), so I'm interested what others think about it. EnemyOfTheState| talk 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think having the awards in the filmography table makes the filmography more difficult to read, since many of the fields end up empty while others end up with 5+ lines. Before the awards and filmography were partially combined, they were not redundant, and were, in my opinion, easier to read. The separate awards table is in the format typical when a stand-alone article is created for the awards (See most any artist awards list at WP:FL, eg this one). Gimmetrow 01:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess there is no clear consensus, though the majority seems to be in favor of removing the awards section. Maybe a solution could be to cut the table, and to create a sub-article that contains both a more detailed filmography (including directors, co-stars, box office gross), as well as a list of her awards and nominations comparable to the Gwen Stefani example above? EnemyOfTheState| talk
There is no mention of the fact that she became pregnant with Pitt's child while he was still married to Jennifer, despite her protestations she would never do such a thing. This seems like an important fact to leave out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.43.129 ( talk) 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well if look at the time line of her pregancy she was clearly pregnant while brad was still married to his wife so how is that unsourccd gossip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nillarse ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Is she religious? I think she's some kind of agnostic or atheist even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.192.184 ( talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the format could be tweaked a little. Perhaps a 'personal life' and 'career' heading with several sub-headings. Teatreez ( talk) 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the following sentence:
She attended her wedding in black leather pants and a white shirt, upon which she had written the groom's name in her blood. [1]
I looked through the source and couldn't find anything about this. I may have missed it,can someone verify this? It seems kind of extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwake20 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The movie Salt is currently in production, listed through IMDB, and now has its own Wikipedia page. Why can't it be listed on Jolie filmography? The information is there, it should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.142.249 ( talk) 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
the article says that she has been long estranged from her father and that the tomb raider movie was an attempt at reconciliation. THIS IS NOT TRUE. angelina thanked him in her golden globe and oscar speeches in the 90s. there are also MANY, MANY photographs of her and her father together and looking happy throughout the years. OBVIOUSLY they were not "long estranged" whatever source says so is inaccurate. jon came to both of her weddings, attended numerous award ceremonies with her and was often seen with her in public. this needs to be changed.
here are the photos http://wireimage.com/searchresults.aspx?cbi=2177&s=angelina%20jolie&sfld=C
they don't look estranged to me!
The fall out between Ms Jolie and her father is based on a disagreement they had when Ms Jolie was submitting papers for the adoption of her son Madox. She had a lot of stress and at one point felt Mr Voight was slow in signing some papers needed for the adoption. You could hardly call that a 'major disagreement'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwrd ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
ALSO, the article says her parents separated in 1976. that is false, whatever source says so is untrue. how do you explain all the family photos?
most sources say that marcheline and jon voight split in 1978 (which is the truth) even people magazine says so and that is a very reliable source. if they separated in 1976, angelina would have been one year old.
here are family photos that show angelina and she's obvious not one year old:
http://images2.sina.com/english/entertainment/p/2009/0204/U135P200T1D216063F8DT20090204200252.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBfoQbBYpw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNm7P0YdeFo&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqtsm_Oa5tg&feature=related
i try to make edits but wildhartlive keeps reverting them for no reason
Excuseme99 ( talk) 04:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have reverted your edits, except they are for very valid reasons. They are incorrect and constitute guess work and sleuthing in the absence of valid sourcing. I'm growing weary of reverting and adding third party, verifiable and reliable sources in order to further support statements in this article regarding Jolie's relationship with her father and when her parents separated. From what I can tell, you appear to have an idea about the dates and whether or not she was estranged from Voight. Per the definition of estrangement: the feeling of being alienated from other people, a state of separation between persons or groups. It does not mean they are enemies or that they refuse to see each other or be in the same place. The information about the year the Voights separated comes from an article from Vogue magazine in which Jolie participated. Are you saying Jolie what - lied about it? Why would she do that? Do you think that because a couple is separated that they wouldn't speak, be somewhere for some given reason together, or be in contact because of the kids?? What do we have as opposition to an article in which the information came from Jolie? Your conclusions from one photo. Yes, they certainly can have separated in 1976 and not divorce until two years later. There is a difference between separating and divorcing.
The last edit included a link given as reference to one page showing a picture of Jolie, as a quite young toddler, likely no older than a year old or so, sitting on Voight's lap, next to her mother with James Haven on mom's lap. They appear to be in a waiting area somewhere. Jolie was born in June, 1975. The article had stated that her parents separated in 1976. The photo is offered as some sort of proof that "Some sources say that Jolie's parents separated in 1976, although this is contradicted by many others that say they separated in 1978 as well as photographs that show the family looking together and looking happy when Jolie was older." There is no context given for the photo, or if they are "looking together and looking happy", and it certainly offers no proof that the couple was together until 1978 - when Jolie would have been three years old. For all anyone knows, this could have been taken while waiting for a court hearing regarding legal separation. It proves nothing. There is no reference offered to disprove the already sourced material that they separated in 1976. This sort of inclusion is nothing more than original research and synthesis.
A second link was added to a Wire Image page offering 17 photos of Voight with Jolie or Jolie and Haven, and is given for support of the change from text reading "Jolie has been long estranged from her father. The two tried to reconcile and he appeared with her in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)." to new text reading "Jolie is estranged from her father. The two starred together in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider in 2001. Some sources say that they had been long estranged before then, and that they attempted reconciliation during filming This, however, is contradicted by that fact that Jolie and her father made many public appearances together and appeared seemingly happy during the years prior to the film." Pardon me, but what?? The amount of time prior to Lara Croft that they were estranged isn't specific. The article actually says they reconciled and then appeared in Lara Croft and then became estranged again after that. Estrangement doesn't mean they never had any contact whatsoever, it doesn't mean there weren't times they were closer than at other times. What we're offered as allegedly proof that they weren't is basically three photos while Jolie was still a child - one from 1980, one from 1986, one from 1988. Then there were a couple from one event in 1991 and a couple from one event in 1994. The rest were posed publicity photos taken at mostly awards ceremonies after Jolie began to receive awards or premieres. The last few were taken in 2000 and 2001 - around the time Lara Croft was filmed. There is no way to conclude that they made public appearances together - only that in some cases, they were at the same event, or to discern in what ones they were "seemingly happy". This is conjecture and again, does not prove they were close, happy, or "together" prior to some given time. It's just enough. Please either provide valid and reliable third party sources or stop injecting your POV into the article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Them being estranged does not mean they never met, therefore pictures showing them together is not a contradiction. From what I understand her parents divorce was finalized in 1978, but they separated in 1976. EnemyOfTheState| talk 13:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the People article says they "split" when she was three (See http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20214047,00.html) so there you have it. If you bother to watch the youtube videos, she is a toddler in many of the photos with her parents. I highly doubt that it was at a court hearing or something---her parents were not on good terms at all after the split. Excuseme99 ( talk) 07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Who agrees that it should be kept as "actress" instead of "film actor"? Because whenever i change it to Actress, someone just reverts it and I think we should just keep it as Actress. Why should it matter? All other wikipedia articles don't have this conflict. It's not a big deal, yet some users on here are stubborn and freak when someone changes film actor to actress. Actress sounds better. Justme89 ( talk) 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I made some minor changes, mostly clean-up. I did remove two dubious claims I could not verify
There a no reliable sources for this, only stories that are apparently based on this Wikipedia article. EnemyOfTheState| talk 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the lead needs some minor tweaking, bearing in mind two things - 1. This is a featured article and 2. The lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD. I don't see anything about her being glamorous in the article, and as beauty and glamor kind of go together, I don't see why it's so important to add that she is not only beautiful but also glamorous. I don't feel this is particularly enlightening, but I'd be more comfortable with "glamorous" existing in the lead as one of the most important points if it was also given some discusion in the article. Also, I think the lead paints a fairly shallow portrait of Jolie by focussing on her physical appearance. She's also been cited as one of Time 100 most influential people, which is of more consequence than her ability to look good in photographs. Rossrs ( talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Why put such an unflattering photo of her when there is a much better photo of her under the "in the media" article? that photo looks much better.
2. Why mention her flop films (Cyborg 2, Hackers) rather than her hits (gone in sixty seconds, wanted, plus her oscar nod for changeling)?
3. Shouldn't her awards be mentioned in order of importance? and shouldn't it say "won" instead of "received"?
Excuseme99 ( talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)