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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
I've added the two articles given above as references for Angelina using actor over actress. ~~ [Jam] [talk] 08:29, 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)
Cites were:
Removed. Gimmetrow 13:24, 2 October 2008 (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)
My four cents on this:
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)
(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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Where exactly is that? Holywood? ~ R. T. G 22:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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):)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
I've added the two articles given above as references for Angelina using actor over actress. ~~ [Jam] [talk] 08:29, 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)
Cites were:
Removed. Gimmetrow 13:24, 2 October 2008 (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)
My four cents on this:
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)
(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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Where exactly is that? Holywood? ~ R. T. G 22:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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):)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)