Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Adding section about Hinckley to 'Personal life' section?

Would anyone be against me moving the information about the Hinckley case to the "Personal life"-section as a subsection? The bit about her relationships, sexual orientation and children could be named something like "Relationships and family". My reasoning for this is that while the Hinckley case certainly was 'a bigger deal' than your 'ordinary' celebrity stalker case, it was still very much something that affected Foster's personal life rather than her career, and having an entire section dedicated just for that seems a little odd. Also, what are your opinions on maybe renaming the section? In my ear, "fan obsession" is too broad a term – you could call any teenaged fan of a pop star who plasters their room with their idol's pictures and screams at their gigs 'obsessed'. Given that we are here talking about very serious crimes and acts committed by severely mentally ill people rather than actual fans, I think another term would be more suitable. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

"...rather than ACTUAL fans..." ?? Oh, my. Please point me in the direction of the "authorized true fan license bureau". I forgot fans can't be ill nor commit crimes, how could I?! Also, please cite the sources for your claim that the incident affected her personal life more than her career.216.96.77.80 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Currently, in the Religious views section, we have this: "Foster is an atheist. She has stated she has "great respect for all religions" and spends "a lot of time studying divine texts, whether it's Eastern religion or Western religion." She and her children celebrate both Christmas and Hanukkah." " (I deleted the footnote markers.) To my mind this doesn't make sense. Someone like that would be described as an agnostic, as it doesn't make sense for an atheist to "[study] divine texts." And why celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah? __209.179.54.78 (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the Atheism article for the different aspects of atheism. And as this Google search shows, many atheists celebrate Christmas or other religious holidays. Also see this YouTube video ("Do Atheists Celebrate Christmas?") that turns up in that Google search. And, yes, some atheists debate these aspects among themselves and with religious people. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Further, atheists on average know more about religion (and I assume thus have studied it more) than other religious groups. But if she self-identifies as atheist, then that's what we put in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I know people change the meaning of words (look at how nobody understands the correct use of the term "begs the question"), but in the old days atheists denied the existence of God. If they wavered on that they were agnostics. While I understand the notion of self declaration, calling yourself something doesn't necessarily make it so. To me the idea of an atheist (not an agnostic) studying religious texts is like Pat Robertson reading Why Darwin Is Completely Right And Genesis Completely Wrong. But thanks for responding. __209.179.13.208 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
An atheist greatly respecting religions, studying religious texts and/or celebrating a religious holiday does not mean that the atheist believes in God or any deity. That's the point of my "03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)" post above. Did you even bother reading the Atheism article, looking at sources that the Google search points to, and/or watching that YouTube video? Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The correct response to the OP is: We suggest you read more about the variety of athiestic world views. Perhaps then it will make sense to you - or did you have a specific concern? An athiest is a non-theist. That is, they do not believe in the existence of an entity or entities regarded as "god(s)". It does not necessarily mean they don't believe in the supernatural, and I can't imagine how someone can think that study of ANY books or subjects requires "belief" in the relevant subject. It is a simple (and obvious) non-sequitur.216.96.77.80 (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'm planning on overhauling this article, as I think Foster deserves a more detailed one given that her career has spanned more than five decades and includes several classic films. My intention isn't to make any radical changes in terms of layout, but rather to add more information about different stages of her career, as well as better sources. If there's any editor who'd be interested in collaborating, please don't hesitate to contact me! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Confused about her family

The article has left me confused about her family. The article states that she has her kids from her relationship with Bernard, but I kinda doubt it was the same way as within a straight relationship. If she got her kids through adoptation, I think the article should mention it. --2003:71:4E3F:3382:184:B6C:7C10:9401 (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, she has refused to talk about this subject in public. It is known that she gave birth to both children and that Bernard them adopted them, but that's all. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Well, that information alone that they're her biological kids would help clear up the confusion if it can be sourced, even if the father is not known. --2003:71:4E3F:3300:9D1A:9A7C:74E3:8B46 (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jodie Foster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision of 'Early life and education' needed?

In this section, there is plenty of info about her father his ancestors (going as far back as the Mayflower), his roots, previous marriage and career. It then states that Foster's parents' 'marriage ended before Foster was born, and she never established a relationship with her father.' As such, why do we have so much information about him? Is it at all relevant if she had nothing to do with him? Wouldn't it be better to focus on her mother, with whom she did have a relationship?

I've not edited this; there's a lot of correctly referenced info in there, which makes me wonder if this is relevant for a reason I've overlooked. 2A02:1811:B605:4E00:24E4:50DC:366:7E59 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

A separate issue with this section is that it claims that "Brandy was of descent heritage", which is meaningless. The cited article from Rolling Stone says that Brandy's family was German, hence I'm probably going to change "descent" to "German". The subsequent sentence is also ambiguous, but I can't see how to make it less so right now. Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Early role in Kung Fu

Jodie Foster played the role of Alethea Patricia Ingram in the Kung Fu episode Alethea, Season 1, Episode 10. Jodie was born in 1956, Kung Fu was released in 1972, so Jodie was 16 years old at the time of release, but in the episode she looks younger, maybe 14 or 15. Michael44a (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Source is the Episode.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

'canceled' is misspelled as 'cancelled'.

The American spelling is 'canceled'. This article is about an American actress. It would seem as if American spelling should be used.

There is a rule that always works: When suffixing a polysyllabic, never double the final consonant if the accent is on the first syllable.

Other examples:

benefited labeled offered badgered signaled leveled traveled "The Road Less Traveled" etc.

Thank you. 74.93.2.182 (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 22:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Terrible Lead Pic

Sure it is current, but the bad quality pixelation makes her look like she is made of rancid yoghurt. I think we can do better! 2605:8D80:4C0:A26:CD:6F1E:6519:95FC (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for reversion

User:Flyer22 Reborn User talk: Flyer22 Reborn I have never 'pinged' anyone on another page before, so if this protocol is incorrect, my apologies.

Wondered why you reverted my "In popular culture" section? Many lesser actors/country and rock musicians have these on their Wikipedia pages; accounts of songs/stories/movie-roles in pop culture that they have inspired. Why can't Jodie?

Usually, when a major director carefully and lovingly crafts a character obviously based on someone (even using her own oft-quoted phrases; i.e. "call me an actor, not an actress", etc.) in an award-winning movie based on historic events... and even the New York Times (which I cited) takes the time to say the character is based on this person.... well, where and how is that "unnecessary trivia"? That is HOMAGE AND RESPECT, of course. (You saw the movie, right?)

If a great novel character was based on Foster (or a bestseller, poem or hit song) would you consider that trivial too? Because all of these are routinely mentioned in Wikipedia biographies.

Usually, being the inspiration for great characters is considered a testament to the importance of that person's life. Unnecessary trivia??? Seriously??? To be included in a Tarantino film is unnecessary trivia???? I am astounded. Many would kill for such an honor.

Could we please revert the edit? Because I am sure she will inspire even more artistic portrayals at some point, and I think they should be included too. PB57 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I reverted because of the WP:Undue trivia. You placed this small, trivial piece, about something which may or may not be true, in its own section. That was a WP:Undue edit. If it is to be included at all, it certainly shouldn't be in its own section. Also, per MOS:Paragraphs, a little bit of material usually does not need its own section. Wikipedia can include "In popular culture" sections, but they should be done right; see the WP:"In popular culture" content essay. Regarding your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, the vast majority of celebrity articles and articles for other public figures do not have an "In popular culture" section. Can you name a WP:Good or WP:Featured celebrity or other public figure article that does? Celebrity articles and articles for other public figures may have an "In the media" section or "Public image" section (which are often the same thing), but usually not an "In popular culture" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm with the original poster. "In popular culture" can sometimes be pretty trivial, but Jodie has become a meme on several occasions, especially her Oscar speech. There are too many proprietary style dragons on Wikipedia. If someone adds some content, let's celebrate it and improve it, not pooh-pooh it. I found his questioning of the revert to be polite, and the response dismissive. Reversion is odious. Improvement is divine.2605:8D80:4C0:A26:CD:6F1E:6519:95FC (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I stand by what I stated. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't the internal link for the award page included in the main body?

I have to scroll all the way down to the bottom to find the list of awards and nominations. I find that very inaccessible, is there a valid reason to put it at the bottom in that format? I'm not too familiar with biography's format, I hope someone who is can help with this. Thank you! ZeroApocalypse (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have added the link at the beginning of the career section, I hope it's the right place. ZeroApocalypse (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit: Fixed incorrect terminology: External link -> Internal link. Sorry for the confusion. ZeroApocalypse (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Her age is incorrect 70.30.242.169 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Better picture

Surely we can find a higher quality image of Jodie Foster to use than this 2600:1700:190B:9B00:4DD5:D521:298:C1DF (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Low Resolution Photo

Why is her photo here so awful? I'd change it if I understood the ways of Wikipedia.

2601:43:103:59B0:1F3:CA6D:69EF:DE50 (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright issues, mostly. The copyright holder of this image has specifically given Wikipedia permission to use the image. Synorem (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Foster/Archive_5&oldid=1214708761"