Talk:Halle Berry/Archive 1

message: She is expected get her "star" on the Hollywood Boulevard Walk of Fame in Hollywood, California sometime in 2004.
Did she? I can't find her on http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/ MrWeeble 14:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She stated in an interview a while ago that she was waiting until she has a big movie out before she accepts it.  Inductees can take up to 5 years to get it Dowew 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame 

message: First off, I have spoken to Halle Berry and the year, in which she was born, is 1966.  She turns 40 this year on August 14.
Secondly, many have made more of Halle Berry's association with Gabriel Aubry more than it really was and some are still trying to make it look as though these two are still associating.  Halle Berry is actually in love with another Canadian man, named Stuart.  He is 5'7", too.  I know Stuart and he has spoken to Halle.  A person, who has been harrassing Stuart, framed him and made him look bad to Halle.  Halle did not know the truth about Stuart for 6 weeks.  During this time, Halle Berry was confused about Stuart's feelings for her and she nearly had a real 'fling' with Gabriel Aubry.  According to Halle Berry, Gabriel and she did not really do anything.  When she saw Gabriel at the Perfect Strangers party, to which he just showed up, she was confused and depressed about the situation concerning Stuart and she got friendlier than she would have, had she known the truth about Stuart.  This will become verifiable soon.
I am trying to help Halle Berry and Stuart.
Akira Moritani
Moritani akira 07:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You spoke to Halle Berry? Excuse me if I don't believe you, WP:AGF aside. Mike H. That's hot 08:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And there's WP:NOR to consider too. --Chris (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not about whether or not you spoke with her, it's that that is original research, something that does not belong on Wikipedia.  If you had an interview with her that was later published, that would be a different story. --Chris (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do I feel that this particular "no original research" slam is partly motivated by jealousy (he talked to Halle, and you didn't)? ;) Yo, Moritani, hook up a brother with her digits, yo! -- Jalabi99 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HALLE BERRY AND HER ROMANTIC LIFE AS OF 2006 & HER ACTUAL BIRTH DATE 

message: the article states that her mother is of "English ancestry", but i was under the impression that her mother was born (and raised?) in Liverpool. In which case she would be English (and who knows of what "ancestry"...). It's not incredibly important, but if she was born in england, then i think it's worth changing it. Amo 11:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a common mistake that her mother was born in England - it was her grandma. Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a link to a recent interview she did with the BBC, in which she clearly stated that her mother is "blonde-haired, blue-eyed", and from Liverpool. That should settle the issue, I think. -- Jalabi99 00:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  her mother's ancestry 

message: "Her personality, as described by a co-worker, was expressed in these terms..."I can hardly believe how sweet and nice she had been to everyone.  People who weren't half as beautiful as she did not display the kind of inner beauty she exhibited.""
Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced quote 

message: Is there a reason why Monster's Ball isn't mentioned in the "Hollywood Career" section?  Also, the  note about the movie in the "Controversy" section seems to imply that she won the Academy award because she appeared nude in the movie.  At the least the wording is clumsy.
:Fixed. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster's Ball 

message: I added a note that Hugh Jackman, who played Wolverine in the movies, is nearly a foot taller than his character and this hardly seems to draw controversy. Let me know if you have any objections.
--Amynewyork4248 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that's ok. I'm still leery of that whole section just because it starts to veer into rumor territory which I'm always uneasy about. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't really like the section either, but I think deleting the whole thing may raise an unneccesary hailstorm.
--Amynewyork4248 07:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: why don't famous peopol ,simply edit ther won articles and send a disent photo?
Pretty. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pfff 

message: I pared down the section on the X-Men movies because it was generally unsourced and a detailed description of why comics fans took issue with Berry isn't at all necessary for an encyclopedia article on her.  I'm not even sure if that much content would be fitting for the articles on the X-Men movies themselves, honestly.  I removed the paragraph on her comments regarding racial equality because the entire quote was unsourced and there was no indication of who regarded what she as controvercial or why. It struck me as fairly bland and uncontrovercial considering the issue she was discussing. Croctotheface 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the nudity section because it was also unsourced and I fail to see the controversy, which is not explained. I reworked the sentence on Berry's feelings on playing Storm because there was an unsourced "quote" from her that, when I searched Google for it, only returned Wikipedia, mirrors, and maybe a half dozen forum posts, which seemed to get it from here as well. I wouldn't mind a citation from a REPUTABLE source that takes the opposite side from the hollywood.com page, but I'm not willing to go search it out. Croctotheface 09:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed much of the Controversy section 

message: Berry received much criticism from some African American's for her having received an Academy Award for her performance in Monster's Ball. Some claimed she had demeaned African American's by portraying a black woman having sex with a redneck racist. Berry paid little attention to the criticism, as did most critics. Given the success of Monster's Ball, the majority of the public seemed to have ignored the criticism also. 
Waaaaaay too butt-kissy and weasel-wordish. The whole section is. The "controversy" has been completely eliminated and whitewashed, and that's ridiculous. Needs work. MagentaThompson 05:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think it's way overblown and given too much space in the article as it is. This is not a fan site. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy POV 

message: I changed it to 1966 or 68 since the sources I've seen can't agree and Berry has never confirmed nor denied the birth year. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try scrolling up a bit on this page. She confirmed 1966 on an Oprah appearance earlier this year. Here are a few more where she confirms 1966:   --Fallout boy 10:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth year 

message: I actually only kept it protected for a couple of hours. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page is unprotected 

message: The page was semi protected due to PennyGWoods and her socks. Only an admin (such as myself) can remove the protection. So removing the tag doesn't do anything. I'm going to keep it protected for another 2-3 days just to make sure that Penny isn't going to hit us again, especially since she threatened to revert as soon as the article is unprotected. And by the way Santorummm, a banned user editing a page is considered by most to be vandalism. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need evidence as to why this page needs to be protected for awhile, look here. Penny just posted that to this very talk page but it was reverted because she's a banned user. So. I know it's an inconvenience, but it has to be done. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And another one. Time to SP the talk page for a spell. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And reprotected. My goodness gracious this is a joy. Oi. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of the page 

message: Wouldn't you say that Nicole Kidman was the main competition that year? I remember a lot more buzz about Kidman than Spacek.Basel88 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sissy Spacek and the Oscar 

message: I know when doing just a simple google search (probably not at all valid sources, but I'm not exactly looking right now) that Halle Berry has an 80% hearing loss in one ear? If sources can be found I think this merits inclusion into the article (actually I'm puzzled as to why it's not already in there). Quite honestly I'm swamped IRL or I'd look it up and do it, but since I can't I thought I would at least mention it on the talk page. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hearing? 

message: The line that reads: Her first marriage in 1992 to pro baseball player David Justice ended in a 1996 divorce due to alleged infidelity and incompatibility." needs to be changed. There was no alleged infidelity. While several bio sites cite infidelity as the cause of the breakup of their marriage, neither parties have said that was the case. The only notion supporting this is found, among other places, in the February 5-11 1997 USA Today Baseball Weekly, which notes:
"The news broke in late February - just days after he was questioned by Riviera Beach, Fla., police when they saw him parked in an area that a police spokesman said was "know for drugs and prostitution". No charges were filed."
He was in a parked car, alone, with no one else nearby. Hardly an indictment. The event is recalled in the May 13, 1996 issue of People magazine, where Justice was asked whether he had ever cheated on his wife, and answered: 
"Absolutely not." Says Berry: "If anything was going on, I didn't know anything about it."
As for the abuse item, in the same article Berry states that a person "well-known in Hollywood hit her" and she lost a significant amount of her hearing permanently as a result. She refuses to name this attacker, but around the time she was dating actor Wesley Snipes and actor Christopher Williams. This was in 1991, prior to her relationship with Justice. 
142.177.126.225 23:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage to Justice 

message: Well it's not great, but it's workable. I'd really rather that it be less of a "here's a quote" type thing but we can tweak it. Like I said, it's workable. Good job, Shakam. --Woohookitty(meow) 18:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. :) Well the thing is, it is something that should be in there somewhere. Her race is discussed alot, fairly or no. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Self-Identification as African-American section 

message: according to the self-identification section she is biracial and identifies as such, while she is categorized as only african-american. she should be categorized as biracial. it's unfair and unfactual that only one side of her heritage is represented. Joeyramoney 01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  self- contradicting on race 

message: Not without some more reliable sources, thanks.   We are not here to propagate memes or hoaxes.  Guy (Help!) 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have this, along with this Rolling Stone Rock Daily blurb, and this New Zealand Herald story.  It'd be nice to get a confirmation in whatever issue of Ebony this was in, but sourcing doesn't seem to be the problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and then I find this.  So I dunno.  i think the best move is for an actual Wikipedia editor to find a copy of Ebony and at least confirm that part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my thing. Amazon doesn't have it. I know that we can't use them as a reference, but generally, if they don't have it for sale, it doesn't exist. Especially in this case where we have an A list celebrity releasing a CD. It should be all over the place on amazon and other sites. It isn't. --Woohookitty(meow) 17:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax album 

message: Early on in the article, it states that she has type 2 diabetes. Towards the end of the article, it states that she has type 1. Which is it? 69.12.240.184 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diabetes type 1 or type 2? 

message: Yes in imdb, one page has Rosetta. Another has Sharon. On this page and this page and this page and finally this page has it as Rosetta. And I am sure there are others. These were just from the first page of a google search I did. I think we should be safe and just do "Miss Stone". --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hollywood.com, yahoo movies, moviegoods.com don't strike me as overly reliable in comparision to BBC and this character name seems to have a story behind it. I suppose someone could just reference the DVD for the correct name, no? Gimmetrow 06:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess so. I also found tvguide. And her own website references the imdb list. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: IMDB is incorrect, and not even consistent.  Their quotes page uses Sharon.  A correction on IMDB has been submitted.  Part of the inconsistancy was that both names were used until late in production.  The final name ended up being Sharon Stone.  It's as easy to confirm as a trip to Blockbuster.  Also,  any review listed on RottenTomatoes.com that actually names the character uses Sharon and not Rosetta.  ---Caligulathegod 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of her character in The Flintstones 

message: So is there no one with definitive information about Halle Berry alleged total loss of hearing in one ear due to a physical attack from then-boyfriend Wesley Snipes in the early nineties?
And the R&B singer that started it all by naming Wesley as the one who did it?--146.145.75.106 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wesley Snipes/Christopher Somebody 

message: So Halle Berry is the first African American to have won the award, and not the only one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.216.210.200 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jennifer Hudson won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar; Halle Berry is indeed the only African American woman to win the Best Actress award.--Galliaz 01:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jennifer Hudson (African American) also won an Academy Award. 

message: There is another film where Halle Berry will have a major role, Goddess of the Sun, as Egyptian Queen Nefertiti. Not much has been published about this film. The film is being made by Kermit Blackwood. Kermit Blackwood (Wikipedia accounts are User:Pinudjem, User:Amoun-Pinudjem and Milad A.P. Sourial) has not made many films, but he is such an amazing guy. He was the one who had suggested that the Green Peafowl is actually a complex of several distinct species. Frankyboy5 15:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goddess of the Sun 

message: There is a "Holly Bailey",  Newsweek, &  msnbc.  Today,  Chris Matthews  said "Halle Be----,... Holly Bailey!,..."
Thank You,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ Holly Bailey ]] 

message: Citation 17 links to an article that claims Halle Berry has a 'white father and an Afro-American mother' -- her mother was English and her father was African-American.  Perhaps articles that have such a poor standard of research shouldn't be used as a source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.113.229 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation in citation 17 about the threats to her unborn baby. 

message: There was/is a dispute over the fair use images in the recent FA Cillian Murphy. In light of that, I would like to review the two fair use screenshots recently added to this article. Are they necessary? I tend to think no, since the article was fine for ages without them. There are actor FAs without a single fair use image: Angelina Jolie and Katie Holmes. If an article on an actor uses a screenshot, I think the screenshot needs to be distinctive in a way difficult to describe in words; it should involve unusual costuming or makeup, or show some stuntwork, or be the first or defining role. The X-Men shot might work due to the costuming, but still we should be reluctant to use fair use images. Gimmetrow 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But even her entry in Die Another Day is distinctive. Isn't it?  Vikrant 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it? I'm not so convinced, but in any event I see at least two featured articles without any fair use images. While it might be nice to have one or two screenshots, they don't appear that necessary. Gimmetrow 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were plenty of free images here. I've removed the unfree ones, I think they fail the WP:FUC anyway.--Docg 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: Just to explain what I've removed and why:
#Non-free images - these are unjustifiable, particularly since we've got two excellent free images
#"Aubry, who lived ... presumably open to being an adoptive parent as well" - pure speculation per WP:BLP
#"After initially denying rumors that she was pregnant..." links 404'd for me. Can be replaced if/when citations are good.
#http://www.hollywoodchamber.net - 404d
#The accident thing, I removed by mistake. However, is it really encyclopaedic that someone got a driving violation? I suppose that's debatable - replace it if you disagree.
--Docg 18:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I readded the pregnancy thing. The MSNBC works for me as of right now. The second ABC4 cite was dead and archive.org did not have a replacement. Agreed with Aubry and images. I am iffy about the accident thing as well. However, hit-and-run is a felony and she is a notable person not known for committing such acts. I leave it up to someone else to put it back in. spryde | talk 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm curious - what part of WP:BLP requires you to immediately remove without notice a complete reference with author/title but a broken url, and without apparently even trying to find a working url? Gimmetrow 19:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think I mentioned BLP in this regard, but any statement that starts with "denying rumors that she was pregnant" is best removed for a few minutes until we are sure.--Docg 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was asking in regard to the star referenced to hollywoodchamber.net. It was trivial to find the correct URL because the citation was adequate. Then, for some inexplicable reason, it was removed a second time. At the very minimum I would have expected the URL to be commented out so someone else could find the appropriate url if you were unable after a few minutes of trying. Almost no editors look through history for removed citations, so removing it entirely is bad. As for the pregnancy section, one of the cites was MSNBC and it worked fine. Gimmetrow 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed material with the intention of coming back to it - others however fixed it first.--Docg 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removals 

message: *The Emmy and a Golden Globe are neither cited in the lead nor in the main body.  When one does a uncited WP:LEAD, it is under the assumption that the important claims are all cited in the main body.  I see the info in citations elsewhere such as the Geneology ref, but If I only wanted to find out about her Emmy and GG and did not read refs in other sections I would be lost so recite here.  Use the name= parameter in ref tags to do so if you can.
*  Vikrant 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  14:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I don't see why the intro needs to set aside the fact of her parent's divorce and her own two divorces in the lead-in: this info appears later in the entry, and this separate paragraph implies that divorce is an especially notable entity in HB's life.  What's more, it's placement in the intro implies that the entry is directing the reader to conclude that HB's life has been, in some unspecified way, shaped by divorces, something that an encyclopedia cannot do.  Perhaps a priest or psychoanalyst can do this, but I don't think a wikipedia entry should.--Galliaz (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the emphasis isn't ideal; removing most of it for now. Some other celeb articles have paragraphs about their relationships, eg Katie Holmes, but the emphasis is on the media attention. Gimmetrow 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Niehter Katie Holmes nor Angelina Jolie nor Eric Bana satisfy WP:LEAD requirements. This one should.  Vikrant 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3d paragraph in intro 

message: Hallo, everyone,
I noticed there is a movie mentioned in Berry's filmography called "Storm Origins". I did some googling, but couldn't find anything. Has anyone a reference for this? Otherwise, I suggest we delete it, as it seems like wishful thinking to me. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm Origins? 

message: Why can't we use this image :Image:HalleB.jpg as the lead pic instead of that horrible, grainy image?  I mean, Halle Berry is recognized as one of the most beautiful women on earth, so why can't we show off more of her skin and figure? Just a thought. 75.41.169.26 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See User talk:70.135.8.116. Gimmetrow 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coming to this article for information about her recent childbirth, I feel inclined to answer.  We can use the image, just not as the main image, since that would violate Fair Use requirements.  While I consent that Berry is a very beautiful woman, I don't think that's grounds enough to use that image of her as the lead. It can go further down the page near the relevant text, though, of course. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 01:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the fair use rationale for the use of that image in this article, so I think it'll do just fine. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Main Image 

message: So is her daughter white?--J intela (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daughter 

message: I corrected Berry's mother's birthplace to Ohio. I was already inclined to trust the "family trees" that list her mother as being born in Ohio (i.e. ), but Berry herself stated that her mother was born in Ohio during her appearance on Inside the Actors Studio. She also said that her mother's parents and grandparents were from London, which evidently contradicts her previous statement that her mother is a "Liverpudlian" (and the fact that her maternal grandfather was from Ohio, not London), but so it goes... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! Berry herself states that her mother was born in Ohio, and you counter with it being "well known" that she was born in England. OK. Anyway, I removed her mother's birthplace from the article. Since Berry has stated that her mother was born in Ohio and on a different occasion that her mother was born in Liverpool, it's clear something's up here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother's birthplace 

message: 1) It seems unlikely that Halle Berry named her daughter after the Northern Alberta Health Libraries Association.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The Cape Code Times was cited for the info, but without a link.  I wanted to add a link, so I looked through the archives of the Cape Cod Times but could not find the cited article.  Without that article, the info is uncited, so I removed it.  2) As for the baby weight sentence, the cited source, www.nowmagazine.co.uk, bills itself as being about "celebrity gossip, news, fashion and beauty secrets + daily horoscopes".  It does not seem a reliable source.  Further, information about Berry's weight right after pregnancy is unencyclopedic, unless it has an impact on her career.  3) As for the information about the nurseries, I improved the cite for that by adding a link. Ariadne55 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nahla Ariela Aubry 

message: An editor had removed the text and citation of Halle Berry's mother being originally from Liverpool, England. This is an issue for some it appears but the evidence is there that that her mother is Liverpool born, it has been widely acknowledged and citations in two British newspapers appear to be overlooked by editors insisting she is not Liverpool born. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers make mistakes. There appears to be a downloadable version of the Actors Studio episode here - . I really can not add much to this conversation other than repeat that if there are two conflicting versions of her mother's birthplace, I don't see any reason not to just leave it out from the article, since it isn't that important. No one is denying that her mother is of English origin and of roots from Liverpool, this is stated in the article right now. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Why would Berry state that her mother was born in Ohio, if it wasn't true? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought rewording this statement with the newspaper references would make this information about mothers bithplace in Liverpool be acceptable, unfortunately this is not the case Dmcm2008 (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  revisit of mothers birthplace 

message: On MSN it is clearly stated she was born in 1968 not 66. Since MSN is about as reliable as you can get with information. Can anybody find more reliable sources stating that she was born in 1968? that's all.Mcelite (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the footnote on the year of birth. She made it clear it's 1966. Gimmetrow 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her birthdate 

message: She just bought a house there with her boyfriend. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=31854 . --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to Quebec 

message: maybe this can be reworded? Statesboropow (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasian psychiatric nurse? 

message: You may want to check the external links at Cindy Williams (journalist).  They might be useful here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miss USA footage 

message: On Filmography you can see 
'Strictly Business, but that is a article about the album not: Strictly Business (film). Kamila 064 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  movies 

message: umm..what is this??? it's really confusing...is it some sort of irreversable vandalism? it's not going away when i try to remove it. Pinkpupp62 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchement alalala??? 

message: The name of Berry's character in the Flintstones movie was Rosetta Stone not Sharon Stone.
Someone should correct that. 68.144.146.241 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Halle_Berry/Archive_1#Name_of_her_character_in_The_Flintstones. Gimmetrow 02:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flintstones Character 

message: In 2006 fox news stated that halle berry was charged with two misdemeanors for separate hit and run incidents:
	 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wg_Jg8hVlg4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greedo3000 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hit and run incidents 

message: I do believe the distinction also goes to Charlize Theron, being an African-American woman to win an Oscar. Charlize is actually FROM Africa (check her own page on this site), making her the true definition of an African-American. 
And if anyone wants to say that Halle Berry should be acknowledged as the only African American because her skin is darker, I'd like to remind everyone that Halle is of mixed racial background. Her mother is caucasian and her father negro. If that qualifies her as "African" then the definition of African is very loose. Theron is a born and raised African, and therefore should be acknowledged as another African-American to win an Oscar. No knock on Halle. I love her. She's my favorite "black" actress. This is more a criticism of the asinine nature of political correctness and the ridiculous term "African-American".
If race is going to be related to a person's continent/country of origin, and not their actual biological race, then Theron is being discriminated against because her skin is white. She is a white African, whilst Berry is an American of mixed ethnicity (whose ancestry can be traced to Africa). Theron has a more direct connection to Africa, so why is she not considered "African American"?
Wikipedia. GET IT RIGHT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.32.53 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think you could have made the same point without indulging in the show of indignation and preaching about your viewpoint on political correctness. Theron's own article, to which you refer, describes her as South African-American. Meanwhile, in any case, Berry is still the first African-American to win a Best Actress Oscar, Theron didn't win until 2 years later. However, Berry fits both criteria based on Wikipedia's own article, African American.  Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First and Only African-American actress to win an Oscar? 

message: Is it true that she has 6 toes in her feet??? That is reported sometimes in press
:And where would that be? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six toes 

message: I don't think anyone would dispute that the incidents are attributed to sources, or that they warrant mention.   The question is how strongly should the subject be dealt with and how much emphasis should be placed upon it.   The subject is already covered in the article.  It has to be looked at within the overall context of Berry's life and Berry's career.  Having its own section and giving such a degree of detail makes it appear as more significant than it actually was.   Berry's career has not been particularly damaged by the event, the publicity surrounding the case hasn't continued, it wasn't a major scandal, it was sorted out privately.....    There are a few points to consider.   Firstly WP:BLP.   I don't see a problem with the brief discussion of these events because it's appropriately sourced.   WP:UNDUE - I do see a problem here because it focusses on the events as being among the most significant aspects of Berry's biography, and this is not the case.  WP:HARM - I do see a problem here also.  If we place undue emphasis on something negative simply because we can find sources to support it, potentially we do harm.   If you then go back to WP:BLP, the harm element becomes a problem.   It needs to be kept in context.  I'm not saying avoid it completely, but the previous version gave sufficient mention for anyone wanting to know about the subject.   The "public"'s right to know does not negate the policies that we have in place to protect living people and ultimately to protect Wikipedia.  Sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution, and I think this is one of those times.   Please, before adding this again, I would invite anyone to state their case, and explain why the addition of this information is more important than the policies, guidelines and general processes that I've referred to above.  Rossrs (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your explanation, it is helpful to know where you are coming from in order to find middle ground.  A few points:  I am not adverse to the idea of giving the issue an appropriate amount of attention.  However, the information that was previously in the article only mentions one hit-and-run accident.  You'll notice remarks at the top of this discussion page regarding the second hit and run accident --- it was in fact this remark that motivated my research.  I wanted to know if there was in fact another incident, and I assumed that the person who posted the comment on this discussion page wanted clarification as well.  Surely, we two can't be the only people confused about the topic.  I would suggest that instead of just deleting my edits, please incorporate the facts in such a way that keeps the relevant information but does not smear Halle Berry's reputation.  After all, I spent a good amount of time searching out and sourcing my edits --- it is a little frustrating for me when you just come in and erase all of the information I have presented.130.13.182.116 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

text: It's also frustrating when you thank me for my comments and mention finding a middle ground and then completely disregard my comments and the middle ground that you have referred to.  There are two editors than do not support the inclusion of this information in the format that you've supplied, so it's not appropriate for you to simply paste back the entire section.  If the inclusion of material is disputed - as it has been - it should be discussed and resolved at the talk page before it's added back to the article.   If you want to reword it so that it covers both incidents, that's fine.   It's not acceptable to have an entire section headed "hit and run" as it gives undue emphasis, and the level of detail is not appropriate.    The fact that you've done a lot of research makes your frustration understandable but it doesn't make your reversion correct.   I'll leave it as is to allow time for other editors to comment.   I would suggest it be incorporated into the section of the article where it previously existed - not in its own section- and that it be abbreviated as follows.  I particularly feel that the allegations are of a "she-said - she-said" variety and that Raythata is too strongly represented.  We should stick to Raythata's actions and leave her opinion out.  (The information is not meant to be exhaustive and anyone wanting more can go to the source material to read the fuller version)
Berry has been involved in two separate hit and run accidents.Jet Magazine (March 27, 2000).  "Woman Injured In Halle Berry Car Incident Sues; Cops Say Actress Was In Similar Mishap 3 Years Ago".  Accessed 2009-05-11.  The more widely publicized incident occurred on February 23, 2000, when she ran a red light, in a rented Chevy Blazer crashed into a car driven by Hetal Raythatha, and fled the scene.Jet Magazine (April 17, 2000).  "Halle Berry Charged With Misdemeanor In Hit And Run Case".  Accessed 2009-05-11.  Raythatha was treated for a broken right arm,Jet Magazine (March 13, 2000).  "Police Probe Halle Berry's Involvement In Hit And Run".  Accessed 2009-05-11. and publicly stated that she was left permanently disabled from the accident."Halle Berry Sued in Hit-and-Run" Associated Press, March 9, 2000.  Accessed 2009-05-11.  Berry later surrendered to police and was given a reduced charge of misdemeanor hit and run.  She pled no contest, paid a fine and was placed on three years' probation.Touré (January 20, 2001). "Portrait of a Lady". USA Weekend. Accessed 2007-04-02.  Raythatha filed a civil lawsuit against Berry for negligence that was later settled out of court.Jet Magazine (May 28, 2001).  "Halle Berry Settles Suit Filed By Woman In February 2000 Car Crash".  Accessed 2009-05-11.  Raythatha alleged that Berry fled the scene because she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Berry's publicist countered that the police did not have any evidence that drugs or alcohol were involved, and that in fact Berry fled the scene to seek treatment for a head injury that resulted from the crash.  Berry has maintained that she has no recollection of the accident, and only recalls arriving at her home with blood on her face.  Police reported that Berry was the driver in a similar hit and run accident three years earlier, in which no charges were filed.  Berry reportedly worked out a settlement with the other driver in this accident as well.  Rossrs (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, I hadn't thought of it, but User:Wildhartlivie is right.  We don't need to name the other person and she is otherwise not notable.   She should be "the driver" and the information, which is only relevant to Berry, stays focussed on Berry.  Also, I believe "accident" is not a correct term as "accidents" are caused by people's actions.  The term is being used less frequently by police etc.   "Incident" is more correct.   I've reworded it again, below, and I think this is more where we should be heading with reporting these events. Rossrs (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with these edits, even though I think it shows a bit of bias as well.  As long as the information is there so that people can find out what happened, that is fine.  There's no reason that this sequence of editing couldn't have been done on the main page --- this is what should have happened instead of someone just coming in and deleting all of my hard work.  If you read the Focus on content section of the dispute resolution page, you'll find the following passage: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, IMPROVE IT IF YOU CAN. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, DON'T JUST DELETE IT."  These guidelines are there for a reason.  Show me someone who wouldn't be irritated by having their work thrown away.130.13.182.116 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what you are referring to as bias. It states the facts without repeating unfounded allegations by the other party which tend to imply that Berry was under the influence although the same articles state that this was not the case. It is irresponsible to repeat allegations that are unfounded. In any case, WP:BLP and WP:HARM take precedent over other policies regarding editing and the actions taken in this situation were done with regard to that. It would be one thing if something that was removed permanently, but nothing is gone on Wikipedia, it still exists in the history. The series of edits occurred because experienced editors saw major issues with presentation of content in regard to WP:BLP and removing questionably skewed content based on that supersedes WP:FOC and other such policies. As for the name of the other person involved, WP:BLP also addresses presumption of privacy, which in this case, would warrant removing the name of the non-notable person involved. This is basic stuff and should be adhered to. I have no problem with the section as edited by Rossrs above, and it should go in the personal life section without its own section heading. By the way, someone else has added an unreferenced statement that the incident became fodder for comedians, and that should be removed since it isn't cited. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what you mean by bias, but if you have a concern with it, all you have to do is say so.  I've acknowledged your irritation.   I don't think WP:FOC was important in the first instance, because both of the editors that objected to the inclusion of this information objected to it in its entirety and  believed that the existing information sufficed, so it wasn't necessary to reword it.  It's says "improve it if you can" - I didn't think it needed improvement, but  I've offered this rewrite as a compromise.   Now please stop complaining about how much time you've put into researching this, as I've spent just as much time discussing this with you.  You're irritated.  I get it.   The information is retained in the history so it's not lost, but don't forget "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." which applies to every edit you or I or anyone else makes.  "Edited mercilessly" can also mean "completely deleted".    In any case, I'll take your "no problem with these edits" comment in good faith, and apply this to the article.  (The fodder for comedians isn't that relevant.  I'm sure Jay Leno and David Letterman etc will make quips about any current news story but only for as long as it remains topical, which is rarely long.   If it entered the vernacular it may be different.  It's not sourced or given within any context, so it just doesn't fit. )  Rossrs (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't care if you want to admit it, but you shouldn't have just blindly deleted the edits.  You can keep talking, but that's the truth, and I don't really have anything more to say about it.  As far as the bias issue goes, it doesn't really matter to me.  For example, I don't think calling something an 'incident' instead of an 'accident' is going to change anyone's mind about what happened.  No one is that stupid.  I do, however, want to commend both of you for working out a compromise with me.  I know that neither of you wanted this content included, so it says something about your integrity as editors that you were willing to allow some version of these facts to appear in the article.  Thanks for that.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm really not sure what this added that wasn't already there, except the mention of the civil settlement (which is now there). The 2000 accident is significant to the biography because it led to one of her marriages - and that significance is sourced. I don't have a really strong objection to a brief mention at the end of that paragraph saying she was previously involved in a different accident, but it doesn't seem anywhere near as significant as the 2000 one. Gimmetrow 02:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  These incidents should be placed in a context in the biography. Wikipedia is (or should be) past the time when even the better articles were disordered lists of any factoid anyone could think of. The comedian line is 1) relevant to the significance of the event, and 2) contrary to Wildhart and Rossrs, sourced. Gimmetrow 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will back up Gimmetrow about the incident being fodder for comedians.  I've seen an episode of 'Family Guy' where they have Halle smash into another car and then run off on foot.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying the comedian's fodder comment is untrue, I recall that it was used, but I do fail to see where it's sourced. I'm not thrilled with adding heavily to this article, but the point has been made, and is valid, that there were two separate hit and run incidents. Efforts were being made to acknowledge that and while it is certainly proper to retain the statement that Berry credited Benet with helping her through that, removing the paragraph removes mention of the second incident. I give up, apparently omissions of fact in good articles shouldn't be rectified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Regarding your comment above, I appreciate that you've put so much into discussing this and that's the whole purpose of these talk pages and discussion.   We disagree over whether the information should have simply been removed, and if we disagree, we disagree.   We don't have to agree, so I'm with you in letting that go now.  "Accident" / "incident" is semantics.  It's neither here nor there but "incident" is a valid term.   You're right though.   Nobody is stupid enough to change their opinion of events because of the word used, and that was not my intent.  Incident is neutral.  "Accident" by definition assumes it was nobody's fault.  It's semantics.   I can see that the "fodder for comedians" is sourced.  I missed that because the source is at the end of the next sentence, not the one discussing the "fodder", but OK, it's sourced.    Considering that this is/was being discussed, I'm perplexed by Gimmetrow's reversion especially as it does not change the context.   Unless it's the bit about Benet supporting Berry.  I don't see this as a disordered list of factoids, something that I'm generally opposed to also.   Maybe I shouldn't have changed the bit about Benet, but even so, we're back to revert rather than improve and it's not appropriate, given the depth of discussion this has been taken place today.   One thing that hasn't been mentioned is Berry's quote about feeling "really good about the resolution".   That's superfluous at best.  Rossrs (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's exactly "the bit about Benet" because that's why this accident is significant to her life. If it were just some accident, I don't think it would matter. Compare the 2006 Mel Gibson DUI incident, which was widely reported and resulted in legislation. Hypothetically, if he had also been stopped and warned for drunk driving in 1998, but that was not widely reported not had any more significance to his life, would it need to be included here? "Omissions of fact" sounds rather negative, but we routinely select some facts and exclude others when writing. Due weight means minor items don't usually get much detail. Gimmetrow 03:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that removing the comment about Benet was not good judgement on my part.  I don't see Benet as the connecting factor that makes the episode significant to Berry, but I do see Benet as important and obviously this was a major event during their marriage.   I don't disagree with the article as it currently stands, because this is essentially the version I favoured at the beginning.  "Due weight" is one of the main points that Wildhartlivie and I were both commenting on, so I agree with you there also.   Aside from the Benet reference, I don't see it as majorly different to what I changed it to.   I still see no point in recording that Berry felt "really good about the resolution" because it's vague and lacking substance and it doesn't say anything about Berry except that she is able to be polite and noncomittal.   Unless I'm missing something.  Would you object to it being removed?  Rossrs (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I do object to it being removed. It was a brief line that went to her state of mind and the significance of the event in her life. I think those few words add more than does expanding "a civil lawsuit was settled out of court" to "the other driver filed civil lawsuit, which was later settled out of court". Gimmetrow 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hit and run 

message: is this really necessary? the only blockbusters she's made in that section are the james bond film and 2 of the x-men movies. i don't think that really needs to be there. her career has not changed much since 2001.Jamesbondfan007 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Success is not measured by "blockbusters" alone, but by many factors not including box office, such as exposure, reviews and accolades. It's far more appropriate to broach such a question on the talk page prior to removing a section heading, especially when the article is a good article and the removal lumps an entire career into one long section. If you have a different section title in mind, then please do suggest it, but please don't just remove section headings and post your comment afterwards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I didn't say you removed a section, I said quite clearly tha you removed a section title, which rendered the career section into one overblown section. We don't put any emphasis on Golden Raspberry awards and do not generally include them in biographies as they often have little meaning regarding success and quality, but are fairly bad natured and stem from more than just "bad reviews". As I said, if you have a better section title in mind, then by all means suggest it, but WP:GA criteria isn't exactly supportive of a huge block of content in one paragraph to cover a career. Still there is a difference between success and box office and some bad reviews. International success can encompass obtaining roles in high profile films that get a large amount of international coverage, far beyond a dollars and cents total. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "International Success" 

message: There is nothing ironic about playing somebody who was nominated for an oscar and then winning an oscar.
It would be ironic perhaps if she played a terrible actress in that movie who nevertheless dreamed of winning on oscar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.53.149 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pleasant  Irony 

message: From the comments above, it is clear that this is about wider issues than the method used in this single article, which are not going to b e resolved here; and that consensus here is not going to be reached in the near future. Rather than expending more effort here, what is needed is a centralised discussion, with a view to determining a project-wide consensus. 
In my view that that should encompass the creation of a single citation template (or family for web/ print/ news etc.) with machine-parsable metadata (COinS) emitted, and the output format determined by a switch or, preferably, a user preference. Any such new template should obviously also resolve concerns about processing times et al. The existing templates should all then be deprecated and replaced.
While I believe that the answer to the original question, above, is yes/ yes (as I have already !voted), I'd be content to leave otherwise, in the short term, while the wider issue is resolved. Can we all agree to that as an interim measure, close this discussion, and focus on these wider issues, in a more suitable location? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear from this discussion, and from every previous discussion like it, that there's opposition to imposing citation templates on the project, or any other single citation style or method. WP:CITE is deliberately written to offer choice, and to make clear that editors must not change from one style to another without consensus, because every discussion that Wikipedians have about this shows they don't want to have particular styles and methods forced on them. Someone did start a centralized discussion about it not long ago, but it just petered out. I'll try to remember where it was, in case you want to restart it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the discussion I linked to in , above? Jack Merridew 10:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. but not here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Andy, see the post above and the links and demo. You'll like it; it's what you describe. Slim, you'll like it, it's *fast*. I see the need for long term resolution to these issues. That could take a long time. Meanwhile, we edit articles daily, and this one's being held back; Uma, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh FFS, SV! You've been here long enough to know how Wikipedia works. It's clear that there is no consensus. Ergo, consensus needs to be determined. This is not the place to do it; but once we have done so, perhaps we can stop having these localised, unproductive and repetitive arguments? I've even suggested leaving your preferred version as the status quo while we do so; and made clear that I'm not proposing "imposing ... a single citation style". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

text: See User talk:Jack Merridew#Citation templates; the bit from RexxS. It's about a specific proposal. You've already commented on that page. For the single-click take on it, see here and then poke about further. It sorts all the load-time concerns. It allows the specification of the cite style just once on the page for all the refs; or better, in your user prefs. It works both with LDR and inline, and It brings the same structure to refs as templates, too. This is the future and whatever nits there are need sorting and then this needs deploying. Migrating to this from templates will be straightforward, as tools will emerge to do most of the work. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of; I support that proposal and have reopened discussion and commented there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The main page was at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion, but it would need some reviving. A better place might be WT:CITE because that's where people hang out who are interested in citations. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Slim. As the suggestion to replace citation templates with enhanced tags has no implementation on Wikipedia at present, I think further centralised discussion would be more appropriate. There's no point in going to CITE with a proposal that doesn't exist yet :) – but I have left a note at WT:CITE to encourage the regulars there to comment. --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that, Rexx. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wider issues