Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 1

message: Hey, new to this so didn't want to change anything, but is there a reason why in the awards section the whole of 1991 has the table cells merged, yet 1988 has them separated?  Seems inconsistent to me, which is the correct layout?  Thanks. TheMania 10:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor formatting question 

message: "Some view Foster is partially to blame for snubbing the disturbed Hinckley yet she has never apologized for her involvment in the shooting which left James Brady paralyzed."  It's pretty ridiculous to say that she owes anybody an apology; she's not responsible for Hinckley's actions.  Besides, it's stupid to say that all celebrities should respond to the advances of crazy fans, and it's unfair to say Jodie Foster should have done it when she had no idea what was going to happen.  I don't want to delete this until there's been a little bit of discussion, but this section is pretty biased against her.  --PatadyBag 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan assassination 

message: Let me start by saying I have nothing against Jodie Foster.  She is obviously intelligent, but that is not the issue.  She probably doesn/t know me personally even though I have worked in the movie industry (briefly).  I appreciate the suggestions of the adm (Zoe and others)
I just find it disturbing that certain relevant facts about J. Foster are suppressed such as her starring in Japanese commercials and that she is not open about her sexuality.  Perhaps that is her right but she is a public person who could save lives if she "came out of the closet" so to speak.  What bothers me about Foster is her apparent hypocrisy, shilling for the Japanese yet American commercials are not good enough for her.  Its reasonable to infer that there is some PR ideas here.  Once she apparently signed an autograph picture and took the fan's picture with her by giving it to her bodyguard (Celebrity Uncensored).  If Ms. Foster is a mult-millionaire actress why does she have to "take" a poor fan's picture of her.  Again it would be possible to infer some PR consideration on her part.
It's disappointing that someone who has benefited so much from America, has not done more for it.  Does she contribute to charity?  Probably a few but I haven't heard of any.  One thing for sure she is no Cindy Sheehan.  Ms. Foster stays apolitical as she rakes in the money from her Hollywood films.  Maybe that's smart for her and too smart for us.  Isn't FlightPlan very similar to a Twilight Zone plot about returning astronauts.
I just urge people to think about who they want to have as their Movie Stars and their character should count too.
66.248.122.177 20:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts on Ms. Foster to help future edits 

message: Why does exist an article about Jodie Foster in Wikipedia? Is it beacause she speaks French, or because she made Japanese commercials or beacause she is intelligent or because she's an alleged lesbian? No! None of the above. Jodie Foster has an article in Wikipedia because she is a professional actress who has won many awards (including 2 Oscars) and because many of her films are well received both by public and by critics. The rest is non-relevant material for an encyclopedia. The main focus should be on her professional carrer. What car she drives, who is she sleeping with, and what she's advertising for are a small matter, suitable for magazines and tabloids. The goal of Wikipedia is to reach a very high standard. In order to achieve this take a look at the Jodie Foster article in Encyclopedia Britannica. There is nothing there even remotely close to the things that have been wrote recently here by an anonymous person who is not a user. Mr. or Mrs. 66.248.122... please take your beef with J. Foster elsewhere. Although I don't think you can, try to see the big picture. Tavilis 20:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Big Picture 

message: First I admit I am still learning all the nuances of Wiki-editing (what to put in a talk page).  Also maybe some of my previous opinion have been colorful yet honest.  I have tried to be civil and everyone has been fairly civil but it is unfair to just delete relevant info about Ms. Foster's career just b/c you don't like it.  I have never made any statements on Wiki about what language she speaks or what car she drives.  I did not write about her brother's bio or the initial allegation of her lesbianism. Second it is really unfair to delete an important section about her career (work) in Japan.  I spent hours locating the relevant and editing the page to add some fairly innocous but relevant info about here ad work in Japan.  People should have all the facts about her career and draw their own conclusion not have it suppressed.  Her ad work in Japan rather than the US is relevant career info.  I urge users and admin to look at the page before Mr. Tavilis deleted it.  Admin Zoe has said facts about her work in Japan is acceptable.  Readers get the "big picture" with more relevant info about a performer's career not less.  Whatever my opinion of Ms. Foster may be I have not let it colored my most recent editing.  Please revert to NPOV including Advertising Work section.  I don't want to but perhap we need some objective mediation on this editing issue.  66.248.123.149
:Although I appreciate your taking the more editorial aspects of your additions to the article out of your revisions, and although I accept that she has done commercial work in Japan, it simply isn't important enough relative to her entire career to be included in an article about her (much less to have its own section).  The only commercial that should be included in the article is her Coppertone commercial from when she was young because it is a culturally significant and iconic commercial.  (P.S.- Even when you sign now, it only shows up as your IP address- I suggest you register for an account so discussion can take place on your talk page).  --PatadyBag 21:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've said that her commercials in Japan are a part of her career. It is true because she was promoting her image in Japan where she became very popular. More Japanese came to cinemas to see her movies and consequently more money went to America. So she did something good for US. And in the process she made some bucks for herself. Good for her! She didn't do any commercials in her adult life in US because she didn't have to. She's rich enough and she didn't have to promote her image there - she's already famous. But there are other things which are part of her career. For examples she enjoys kickboxing, yoga, karate, aerobics, and weightlifting and one might say these are very important for her career because so she stays in good shape. She also recorded some songs for the movie "Moi, fleur bleu" which was another important issue in her career. There are many facts that we could say are or were important for her career. All these are interesting trivia stuff but perhaps they better stay out of an encyclopaedic article. We better focus on her career itself than on the facts affecting her career. Again please refer to the Jodie Foster article in Encyclopaedia Britannica for a glimpse of professionalism. Tavilis 22:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Really Have to Strongly Disagree Here 

message: First I'd like to thank Mr. Tavisil for responding.  However I do not think his comparison to her kickboxing, weightlifting hobbies is apt because these are not professional activities of her.  (She is not being paid for it) I personally wouldn't mind succint bio. info. like that on the page if someone cares to insert it.
What I have done is re-insert a very small paragraph on her relevant work in Japan at the very end.  Factual, NPOV and some people will certainly find it interesting/relevant b/c it is part of her professional body of work.  I hope this will bring consensus and we can move on. Also I will remove some of the earlier comments on this page which seem to offend people.  This isn't about my opinion of her but providing relevant biographical facts of interest to the reader.  Thanks for all your input. 66.248.123.149 22:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go- I edited the page a little bit to what I view as an acceptable compromise.  It retains mention of her commercial work, but doesn't mention that she hasn't been in commercials in the U.S. since childhood (since a) there's no way to be entirely certain of that, and b) it's a little redundant, seeing as Japan is specifically mentioned to the exclusion of the States).  I also got rid of the mention of it being a lucrative deal, since that's why celebrities generally do commercials in the first place (thus, it sort of goes without saying).  Hopefully this compromise works for you?  --PatadyBag 23:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasonable Compromise Solution 

message: Obviously this isn't going to get anywhere- the edits I made reflect the absolute maximum about the advertising that deserves mention in the article (just for comparison, at the moment you have as much space dedicated to the ads as is already dedicated to her two Best Actress Oscar wins).  I call for a final vote on whether this ought to be in the article.
Oppose inclusion in the article, for all the reasons I've listed above. --PatadyBag 18:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FINAL VOTE- INCLUDE/DON'T INCLUDE ADVERTISING INFO

message: Yep, I have read right through this talk page, and have just finished reading the current version of the article. Seems to me to be just an ordinary run of the mill Wiki article about an interesting celeb. Seems to me to contain known information we would need to include to fully cover the subject. Doesn't seem to me to contain extreme POV. Remove the tag anyone? 23:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and removed it when it was inserted recently. --PhilipO 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have taken it down again. --Spartaz 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does the article still have the neutrality tag?

message: This woman appears to be a magnet for nutcases. Captain Jackson 03:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutcases 

message: I don't know if the tale of another deluded fan was a joke or just far-fetched and unsubstantiated, but if whoever put it up can back it up... Johndodd 23:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Another Deluded Fan"

message: According to Academy Award for Best Actress, the Academy's practice is to list films by release year: for example, the Oscar for "Best Actress in 1999" was announced during the award ceremony held in 2000.  I have changed the dates associated with "The Accused" and "Silence of the Lambs" accordingly. Do other dates need changing?  (I don't have time to check them all now.) Perhaps there are similar inconsistencies on other actor pages as well.  RayGates 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academy Award Dates

message: And how Jodie absolutely carried the movie.  She struck just the right balance between energy/argumentativeness and vulnerability.
I did not really enjoy the movie the first time, I think because the ending was kind of a let-down and kind of sad.  The very last scene is Ellie sitting alone in the great outdoors and thinking.  Well, this was a thoughtful movie.  Her character Dr. Ellie Arroway almost had a need to spend a lot of time by herself thinking.  And she did not connect with the  Palmer Joss character (Matthew McConaughey) at the end.  He was also a thoughtful character.  But they just each thought in such different realms.  They probably should not have slept together at the beginning, probably should have just had a make-out session and appreciated each other, appreciated another intense person who has a different world view.  But that's life, too.  Sometimes you go too quick with someone you have some things in common with, but not others.  FriendlyRiverOtter 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How good CONTACT was

message: I don't know if anybody keeps an eye on this page, but the infobox that is being used for Ms. Foster is typically reserved for female porn stars. Just thought I'd let the editors know in case they wanted to revert it. I would myself, but this is my first time on this page and did not know if this was intentional or not.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Anyone have any trivia insights into a Jodie F film that mentions "Chikopi?" What was the film? What was the context. Any pointers to scripts or video would be welcomed too. Rauterkus 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Chikopi in a Jodie movie 

message: What's her maternal and paternal ancestry? Who knows?
:According to "information" found during a Google search, her parents are Latvian.  Also found online various places, and more notably in the "Absolutely Absorbing" 12th Uncle John's Bathroom Reader (page 122 footer factoid), her original name was "Ariane Munker".
:I have been trying to track this through Google searches, but I can't find a reliable source.  The closest I can find is a bunch of mentions of this in trivia books.  At first, it sounds like trivia that has been copied time and again from unknown sources.
:However, an Ariane Munker was the second actor to play Amanda Kirkland on soap opera Ryan's Hope.  A Google Image search turned up a couple of pictures of the actress, and one looks suspiciously like her on this page.  More recent pictures of Jodie Foster show a sharper nose and higher forehead, though, so I'd say it's not her.
:Gotta love trivia book and game makers who copy other trivia books and games. --BlueNight 08:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  Apparently the Ariane Munker in Ryan's Hope regularly acted in soap operas under the name "Ariana Chase".  So much for oddball trivia. --BlueNight 09:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get "Schmidt"? On the California Birth Records, Foster's mother's maiden name is listed as "Almond." It's the same for her siblings. Unless you have a source for Schmidt, it's time to let it go. Swango 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Citing the German Wikipedia is a circular reference. Give us an outside link or verifiable reference -- like the California Birth Records. Swango 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity and Original Name 

message: I understand that she was in no way involved with him or his assination attempt, but there should be some mention of his obsession in this article: right or wrong it's still history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyinMN (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see a reference that she spoke with him on the phone at least once. Wjhonson (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there no mention of John Hinkley?

message: This is totally inappropriate and probably illegal!!
A registered user, fix the word millenium in the 1980-present section.  Correct spelling is millennium.
:Done.--Tom 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is information about her Japanese commercials censored?

message: I believe that Jodie Foster is a lesbian. I think that she is married to a woman producer of some sort, but that she is quite about it.
:Have removed unverifiable comments regarding Miss Foster's sexuality. The comments are based upon gossip and are in no way encyclopedic. Please see the following article regarding possibly libelous comments: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046726.html
I don't know if she's a lesbian and it wouldn't change my opinion of her, but while it would be wrong for us to include the unsupported claim, it would be just as wrong for us to fail to report the frequent allegation as an allegation, without endorsing it.  It doesn't take more than 10 second of googling to find articles like this one, and I'm sure we could find a reliable source that confirms the status of the allegation.  We could write something like "There is a persistent but unsupported rumor that she is in a long-term relationship with producer Cydney Bernard."  Would this violation Wikipedia rules? 24.44.99.211 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its still speculation so it should stay out. --Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's speculation to say she's a lesbian, but it's not speculation to say there's speculation. Out Magazine is a legitimate source, so some reference should be made to it. —Chowbok ☠ 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that if we could find five reliable sources (IE: not "The National Enquirer") which have made allegations that Jodie Foster is a closeted lesbian, that would be sufficient cause to put, at the least, a blurb in the article stating that controversy around her sexual orientation has permeated her career. It is pretty much common knowledge, but common knowledge isn't enough to put it in the article. For reference, see Clay Aiken - there is an entire section discussing the unending allegations of his homosexuality, and it is referenced/sourced and very encyclopedic. Midnightguinea 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've inserted the fact that she's been in a long-term relationship with Cydney Bernard, but I do not refer to her as a lesbian. That terminology should be up to her. As to the relationship, this is well known and documented (see citation) and available from many sources other than the Enquirer (NNDB,Wordpress, Blacknews,AfterEllen, et al). As this fact has a citation, I believe it should stand unless citations are available which state otherwise. Вasil | talk 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So...NNDB calls Bernard her "special friend" which makes me think 'Hmm, not a great source' to be citing Bernard as her partner. Wordpress appears to be a blog and cites Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to meet WP:Reliable source criteria. However, Blacknews might be okay, but I'd like to see others give feedback on this... AfterEllen.com, that's a good one, cute take on the situation. ZueJay (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I try to be very respectful about BLPs. All that was stated was the name of her partner; it did not claim any preference or orientation, which she has not stated. Could you be a little more specific? Are all the sources previously brought forth stating the name of her partner unreliable? On what grounds? Does it have to be NYT or WP before its okay? ZueJay (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you can claim that by just mentioning the name of the partner you are not making any statements. You simply need a reliable source. I think something better than unchecked web source is required. I'd say any reputable published source would probably do although like all these things we probably need to review the source at the time.  Spartaz Humbug! 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was leaning toward considering BlackNews and AfterEllen legitimate sources. We can add to that The Biography Channel. But man, this is a toughie - the most stringent Google search conducted states things such as "companion" and "friend." Certainly, not enough for a BLP. Blllttttt! Oh well - out it goes. PS - it looks like the Portuguese (pt) Wiki makes mention of their relationship but my translation is not perfect (I'm better at Spanish). ZueJay (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, them's the breaks and its why the information is still not in the article. We haven't been able to source it properly... Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoa, Spartaz! The removal of my edits are without merit. To say it is not sourced properly is disingenuous, at best. I agree with the earlier removals which lacked citations, but I provided well written, non-inflammatory and fully cited information which does not violate BLP. Just because the NY Times doesn't say it, doesn't make it false. We've got multiple sources which ALL report the same thing: she is and has been a long-term relationship with Cydney Bernard - No judgement, just a fact. As a public figure, there are multitudes of pictures available of the two walking about holding hands and showing public affection. Why should we accord her any more or less latitude than, say Tom Cruise or Colin Farrell and their relationships? Why do you find it libelous, offensive or pejorative? It is simply a fact and should be in the article. Вasil | talk 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is the implication of the phrasing of the sentence that is the problem? ZueJay (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Way to go to discuss the article Basil.  Comment on the edits not the editor. I'm not the only one who doesn't accept your sources. Blogs are not reliable sources and NNDB is absolutely not acceptable - its got no attributation and uses weasel words. As for Blacknews, the statement comes out of the blue and isn't related to the interview. I'm not really prepared to accept that one either. I'm sorry if my removinging your edit offended you but we have to have thoroughly reliable sources to include information about living people that may cause a problem. Find me a citation in a reputable published source and you may well have your problem solved. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My humblest aplogies, Sartaz. My intentions are being misunderstood and I cannot see any personal attacks in my previous post. I applaud your efforts to avoid violating the canons of BLB and I certainly understand your reticence to avoid heresay. I happen to be a big JF admirer and believe this information to be germane to her life, personality and talent. I've found multiple other sources which illustrate her relationship with Cydney, (Canada.com, Film.com, Pink News, Fridae.com and (rm link causing spam filter problems)). In particular, I find the Canada.com article to be well written, succinct and noteworthy. Вasil | talk 18:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have the sites in the correct order of precedence and personally Canada.com is the only one I would consider the slightest bit reliable because there is a named writer, its part of a reputable company and has a clear editorial policy that suggests that information published will be properly fact checked. Its also not written in weasel words and not subject to interpretation. Hmm. I'd like some time to think this through. I think so extra eyes would also be useful to garner a clear consensus on the validity of this source. Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think taking this to the BLP noticeboard is a very good idea. The Canada.com article seems like a borderline case and I'd certainly like other opinions about it. Gwernol 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to use the IMDb Biography for some of the information in this article, under the theory that it is acceptable for general information but not for potentially libelous statements per BLP. --Wasted Sapience 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I reviewed the Candada.com article again and noted the author was very careful in quoting the Out magazine article where it was used as a source. Please note the part about Cydney and Jodie was not quoted and is stated as a fact, not as a quote from the article. Вasil | talk 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the report/question on the BLP Noticeboard I reviewed the arguments above. I waited a couple of days before responding here since this is indeed not an easy one to answer. But I came to the conclusion that I view this as right on the edge of what we can/can't do in view of WP:NOR and just beyond that line in view of WP:BLP. I think it would be best to follow the lead of reliable sources that would risk to lose a lot in terms of lawsuits, damages and reputation if they published this without a very good source. Another aspect which I personally find more important is how this would affect Foster's reputation, career opportunities, etc. It's her life. Perhaps a good guide would be one of size/reach/audience: Wikipedia is much larger than Out magazine or Canada.com. And Out is the first and only reliable-looking source that has said the l-word about Foster so far. A special word of caution here: it has recently been emphasized on the WikiEN-L e-mail list that individual editors have full responsibility for their own edits. Which means that the Foundation is not responsible and will not take the blame or provide legal protection to editors who post this anywhere in Wikipedia if Foster decides to hit back. For that reason I'm changing the title of my edit summary. It can be that serious.  AvB ÷ talk 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: PS The more notable the subject, the more reliable and numerous the sources need to be to prevent undue weight. AvB ÷ talk 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: she still hasn't self-identified as a lesbian. thanking "beautiful Cydney who sticks with me through all the rotten and the bliss" still is not the equivalent of stating "i am a lesbian". Anastrophe (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  She might not have self-identified, but someone above in this same section said that if there were 5 reputable sources that said she was a lesbian (not just that there were rumours or questions about her sexuality) then that should be recorded here -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it may be recorded here. whether it should be recorded here is debateable. she has chosen not to self-identify as a lesbian. she has chosen to acknowledge her partner, whatever the relationship. this is a WP:BLP. i think at best what could be added would be her above quote. that tabloids jump to the conclusion that she has 'come out' isn't really material. why not let her do the identification herself, in her own time? it's her life, her business. Anastrophe (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jodie Foster is a lesbian?

message: I'm putting the relationship with Ms. Bernard back in. Again. You've all seen the quote before, and it hasn't been refuted with any cited evidence:
"[Jodie Foster] Has been in a serious relationship with Cydney Bernard since they met in 1993 on the set of the movie Sommersby (1993)."--IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000149/bio 
(On a side note, IMDB does not technically acknowledge same-sex couples (whether married or not) on their website (see Elton John) so "serious relationship" is as straightforward--no pun intended--as they get) 
Regardless, she has never denied her relationship with Ms. Bernard, never openly had boyfriends or husbands, and has never claimed she's straight. Thus, any claim that she IS straight (or any implication of straightness by omission of lesbian evidence) is not only unverifiable, but it's also irresponsible. I think that if some wikipedians think it's appropriate to imply that she isn't a lesbian, they ought to find some evidence to back up that claim.--Erin1983 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Erin. I have your e-mail but I'm a bit tied up at the moment and won't be able to come back to this quickly. In terms of compromise we need to either include or not include and this still depends on sourcing. If you need a quicker response you are very welcome to visit the kind people at the living persons noticeboard for a more informed answer. Sorry but this needs some really careful thought and I have too much going on to be able to do this right now. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 2

message: I couldn't find a single reliable source stating that she's a member of Mensa. Could you please specify "citation neeeded" or something?
:How about http://scam.us.mensa.org/WhyBother.html? It's on the mensa website. Wikipedia brown 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never saw Foster mentioned in the other reference, but I did find this -http://www.thefreeman.com/lifestyle/story-20030815-8575.html I don't know what The Freedman is since it's homepage won't load for me. If it's a reliable source, use it. --Wasted Sapience 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mensa membership 

message: An anon editor put in a reference for the claim that she's an atheist - url=http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Jodie_Foster  The link states: "She also described her beliefs as similar to those of her character in the movie and that she can certainly never have proof of god's existence or non-existence."  Nowhere in the text does it say that she claimed to be an atheist.  Never having proof (a belief) of existence or non-existence would lead me to think that she's either an agnostic or an atheist.  It doesn't necessarily mean that she is absolutely one or the other.  Dismas|(talk) 11:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, she seems to be agnostic.  Other online sources (which are all much more reliable than CelebAtheists, see my statement at Talk:Julianne Moore) quote her as professing agnostic beliefs yet loving religion anyway, stating that she loves to read religious texts. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I added the following: "Foster does not follow any "traditional religion," but has "great respect for all religions" and enjoys reading religous texts.Q and A with Jodie Foster Jeanne Wolf. E! Online. July 1997. Sourced, not controversial, in line with BLP. Who's a better source on Jodie Foster than Foster herself? --Wasted Sapience 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion? 

message: The other image looked so much better. --Wasted Sapience 23:25, 28 February 
2007 (UTC)
Ok, that current picture is so not encyclopedic. __________
Even if it is less encyclopaedic, can we find one which doesn't look so... insane? 58.175.136.68 07:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I just created that template, modeled after Template:Jim Carrey. I'll leave it up to someone else to decide what to do with it. Don't know why my text is appearing in the template itself in the 'show preview' mode. --Wasted Sapience 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There we go. --Wasted Sapience 15:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That template is probably going to be deleted soon. Enjoy while you can. --Wasted Sapience 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I have a fancy little trivia book, The Top Ten of Everything 2000, by Russell Ash, DK Publishing, Inc. 1999. On page 182, it gives Foster's top ten movies by gross income, listed below. Should it be of any use in this article, perhaps someone could include it. --Wasted Sapience 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 10 Jodie Foster Movies 

message: I'd like to remove the following: "She gained significant weight while at Yale." That would be very difficult to reference with a reliable source, and I think we may have a potential good article on our hands. That is, if we can all get over the speculation about her sexuality... --Wasted Sapience 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good decision to remove - it's awfully tabloid. ZueJay (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight post-Yale 

message: why is the plot for taxi driver included - there's already an article about that. Should it not at least have a spoiler warning - im sure there's someone out there who hasn't seen it--Roece 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxi driver plot 

message: I removed the part about the media believing her to be the greatest actress ever or whatever that was. The lead is now a little redundant/chunky sorry, but that line was questionable. --Tom 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sentence

message: I am curious to know why this supposedly serious article is headed by an embarassing, and obviously caught off guard, photo such as used by tabloid newspapers to take cheap shots at high achieving public figures. Not only does it distort her face but it creates an impression at odds with the actors demonstrated character. Surely there's a more relevant and characteristic photo availble.tobalwin 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have rather strict copyright policies here on Wikipedia, and we can't use press photos in general. This is one of only two photos of Foster (that I know of) that are licensed under terms that we can use. That said, I don't see what's so "embarrassing" about this photo. I think it's rather cute. —Chowbok ☠ 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is rather candid, but in order to comply with Wikipedia's image policies, it's about all that can be used. Unless, of course, you can get her to pose for a personal image ;-). Sadly, due to her secretive nature and the hands off approach by Mass media towards Foster, we really don't know what she's like. Вasil | talk 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent! Lots of luck! Вasil | talk 14:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the tabloid photo?

message: Please edit the film Abby Singer the she had a cameo in for the link is pointed to Abby Singer (the person) and not Abby Singer (film) Thanks for you help.Wembly Hall Theatre Company 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to edit one of the films that she was in 

message: * Sister is Connie Foster (Constance Elizabeth Foster (born 1955-09-30, Los Angeles, California, USA))
Connie Foster at iMdb
* Brother is Buddy Foster (Lucius Fisher Foster IV (born 1957-07-12, Los Angeles, California, USA))
Buddy Foster at iMdb
* Thanks  --Trekphiler 01:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include Siblings 

message: I've just removed from the article a WP:BLP-violating statement about Foster's personal life that was cited to her IMDb.com biography. Please note that IMDb, like Wikipedia, is user-edited and so is not a reliable source. Extraordinary Machine 19:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info cited to IMDb removed 

message: :Would it be possible to get a relative photo of Jodie Foster on the web page? A photo which is 18 years old is misleading to her current age. 121.50.202.71 04:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  18 year old photo not relevant 

message: Please replace.
SauronTheFair 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that photo sucks. CyberRaptor 03:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo is horrible 

message: I know Foster's a lesbian, *you* know she's a lesbian, she's living with a woman.  BUT - she's never said she's a lesbian.  She's never said she's in a relationship with Bernard.  I challenge anyone to find a reliable source where she says either of those things is true.  Until and unless she does, per the policy on Biographies of Living People the paragraph (and categories) cannot say she's a lesbian. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst not being a direct acknowledgement, what she says in this article does imply her having a relationship with Bernard (being a quite reliable source at the same time): Daily Telegraph "Jodie Foster reveals her lesbian lover" (83.144.116.134 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah but implied doesn't mean true. More to the point, is this really encyclopedic? She's made an effort to keep her sexuality private, and so until a body of referenceable sources appears to confirm it and demonstrate if it is notable, we probably ought to err on the side of privacy. WP:BLP says we should hold off until it is notable, relevant and well documented, and I'd say it is none of these atm. Wellspring (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality - again.. 

message: According to both newspaper and television news sources she has admitted her relationship during a Women in Entertainment breakfast during an award acceptance speech.  This should end the pointless speculation that has plagued this article.  Someone please update the article appropriately - perhaps the page needs to be locked to prevent childish vandalism that has been going on. FatDaks (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you read the news reports by the *one* reporter that was there, Greg Hernandez of Los Angeles Daily News (see ), she still never says she's a lesbian or in a relationship with Bernard.  She thanked "my beautiful Cydney who sticks with me through all the rotten and the bliss." That's all we can report, too - we still can't label her as a lesbian. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jodie's first press mention of her partner in this article in September in The Denver Post.  --Moni3 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry?  I see the interview with Foster, but there's no mention of Bernard. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's subtle: " I need to have something that doesn't belong to my mom, doesn't belong to my kids (she has two sons, a 9-year-old and 6-year-old), doesn't belong to my partner." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of speculation