Talk:Joaquin Phoenix/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Joaquin's Puerto Rican Nationality

People born in Puerto Rico automatically have dual nationality: Puerto Rican and American. Puerto Rico follows the Jus soli law (the right of the soil or the land) meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth.

Therefore, Joaquin is Puerto Rican and American due to the fact that he was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

History of Puerto Rican Nationality

On October 25, 2006, the Puerto Rican State Department declared the existence of the Puerto Rican nationality (see: Juan Mari Bras). Puerto Rican nationality was recognized in 1898 after Spain ceded the island to the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War. On April 12, 1900, the Congress of the United States enacted the Foraker Act of 1900. Section VII of this act created a Puerto Rican citizenship for the residents "born in Puerto Rico and, therefore, subject to its jurisdiction". In 1917, the United States granted Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship without the requirement that the islanders renounce their PR citizenship. Since then, everyone born in Puerto Rico are both Puerto Ricans and U.S. citizens. However, in Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican do not enjoy full U.S. citizenship rights because their rights as such are limited (For example: they can not vote in the Presidential elections). Puerto Ricans do not need to renounce either of the citizenships and do not need a passport to go to the continental United States and once there can participate in every activity as every other U.S. citizen.

There is a common misconception that all Puerto Ricans are of Hispanic background. The confusion stems from people automatically associating the term 'Puerto Rican' (nationality) with the term 'Hispanic' (ethnicity). Even though the primary ethnicity in Puerto Rico is Hispanic, there are numerous other ethnic groups which make up the Puerto Rican nationality. There are many Puerto Ricans of African, Corsican, French, Irish, German, Chinese, Dutch, Lebanese and of Jewish descent, among others.

Laws Concerning Citizenship/Nationality

The modern world is divided up into nations with each nation, at least nominally, exercising control over its own territory and the people who reside within that territory. Among modern nations, citizenship at birth is conveyed in one of two ways; either though Jus soli (the right of the soil or the land) meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth; or through jus sanguinis (the right of blood) where nationality is determined by the nationality of one's descent (parents). Birthright citizenship is the term used for Jus soli as it is applied under US law.

Information mainly provided by: Tony the Marine

There is clear consensus in this talk discussion (even with Tony the Marine) that as long as his place of birth is made clear in the top of his bio, it's OK to not refer to him as a "Puerto Rican actor" in the first sentence of his entire entry. I just deleted the nationality and left that he is an actor (as many other actor entries word it).

The original phrasing is very misleading since his family was not of Puerto Rican extraction and only lived there for five or six years as missionaries. Furthermore, Phoenix has never identified as Puerto Rican that I can find -- can anyone post a link to an interview where he identifies as Puerto Rican? If so my opinion on this would change. But deciding for him that he is first and foremost a "Puerto Rican actor" seems like un-encyclopedic original research, which is a Wikipedia no-no. Anyhow, I think that at this point there is consensus to remove the phrase, so I don't know why it wasn't done earlier. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

False. You can have Puerto Rican nationality if you want and it is only a title. It has no official recognition anywhere in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.169.192 (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• There are a lot of ignorant people who make nonsense comments just for the sake of commenting without citing nor providing any valid source to back up their comments. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans are born American citizens, period. There is no such thing as "Puerto Rican citizenship." Just because some jingoistic zealots get together and print up some cereal box tops with a pseudo-Puerto Rican "citizenship" statement doesn't make it real. It is true that Puerto Rican citizens don't hold the same legal status as mainland citizens. This is because Puerto Rican citizenship is statutory. That is, Congress passed a law making Puerto Ricans citizens. Since no Congress may bind a future Congress, the present Congress, or any future Congress, could revoke that citizenship. Congress cannot, however, revoke the citizenship status of mainland citizens. However, the law is murky in this area, and although the above is true from a strictly legal sense, it is not entirely clear that anybody's citizenship can actually be revoked. That is a question for the Supreme Court to mull over, should, God forbid, the occassion arise.98.170.200.183 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Given the information above, isn't it incomplete and misleading to say that he is "a Puerto Rican film actor"? He is at least someone of dual citizenship, assuming that he has not renounced his Puerto Rican citizenship. Technicalities aside, isn't he an American who happened to be born in Puerto Rico while his parents were traveling during their Children of God years? I think it would serve the article best to say that he's an American actor in the opening paragraph and then in his Early years section mention his dual citizenship. Hashkey (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Great observation.

1. "he is "a Puerto Rican film actor"? - Reality would be Puerto Rican/American.
2. "isn't he an American who happened to be born in Puerto Rico?" - Everybody born in Puerto Rico is an American as is. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Everybody born in Puerto Rico is an American as is." I'm totally fine with that - let's just change it to "an American film actor" and sidestep this whole Puerto Rico thing in the opening paragraph. It can be discussed elsewhere in the article. Hashkey (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would be O.K., however one of the problems would be that we will go back to the war-editing. That is why User:All Hallow's Wraith phrased the intro. as it is now. You see the main problem with the vandals was that they acted as if being a Puerto Rican was a sin or something (you know there are so many people who are prejudiced), not understanding what the term being being Puerto Rican is. I like your idea of making the issue clear within the article, but I don't know if that will be enough to stop the nonsense that sometimes goes on here. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tony.

I find myself disagreeing with you, I'm sad to say. (Of course, I've posted about this before, anyway. Still...) I agree with Hashkey that it should only say "American".

Also, we should not be catering to or appeasing vandals. Not only that, but the reason they're not as active could be other than their possibly liking the current version: for one, the article is now semi-protected.

I read some of the documents about Puerto Rican citizenship/nationality late last year (even took some notes). I learned, above all, that a person has to actually request Puerto Rican citizenship, as Juan Mari Bras did. But even if that's not the case, I again agree with Hashkey that the matter is complex enough not to be omitted from the main body of the article. It should be addressed there.

Tony, I understand what you're saying. But the fact is that "Puerto Rican" is also a unique ethnicity/ancestry/culture, and saying he's Puerto Rican would imply that he is of it/them, based solely on his place of birth.

I hesitate to say this, Tony, but I'm concerned that the present arrangement accidentally makes it look as though Phoenix is being 'recruited' into Puerto Ricanness. A proud people like Puerto Ricans have no need to do that, of course (Puerto Rico is not lacking in people of whom to be proud already, and I'm sure you'd agree with me that it should be considered a privilege to be recognized as Puerto Rican), so it's not right that the current impression should be given in this or any bio, even by accident. SamEV (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• SamEV, it is always nice to hear from you. As I said I wouldn't object with Hashkey's suggestion. After all as co-creator with User: Rick-K of the article (We both wrote similar articles and then areed to merge) I only want what is best for it.

One thing that I want to point out is since we want to make this project as close as we can into a reliable encyclopedia, we must make peolpe understand that the term Puerto Rican should not be understood only on the terms of a people with a common ethnicity/ancestry/culture, that there is a Puerto Rican nationality that has embraced peolpe from non-Hispanic origins as proved by my Puerto Rico immigration series.

Several observations about this interesting subject. I don't think that Ferrer vs Mari Bras is the definitive last word on this subject. Days before that opinion was published, then Gov. Pedro Rosselló signed into law a bill introduced by then Sen. Kenneth McClintock that reaffirmed the domiciliary nature, under the U.S. Constitution, of the Puerto Rican citizenship. Although lack of knowledge of a law does not excuse one from complying with it, the truth is that the justices did not really have any knowledge of that new law as their opinions were being released. Thus, there is no reference to a law, that may very well dispose of the issue, in the Court's opinions in Ferrer vs Mari Bras. Now, the bill's author is the new Secretary of State and, within a few weeks, the Court's 3-1 PDP majority will, for the first time in history, become a 3-out-of-7 minority! McClintock has continued issuing PR citizenship certificates, but has delegated signing them to his Deputy Secretary (very much in keeping with MacClintock's diplomatic way of dealing with issues---fulfilling his legal obligations without violating his personal convictions!).

One thing that I will always admit SamEV, and that for me it is always a pleasure to discuss subjects with peolpe like you and User:Hashkey, who are level-headed and not like some who lack the ability of having an intellectual conversation. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Puerto Rico is not monolithic in terms of ethnic origins. But an example I can give is of someone whose parents went from, say, Bulgaria and settled in France. Their French-born children would be French citizens, absolutely; but they wouldn't be 'ethnic French', i.e. they weren't born of the traditional population. So there's French citizenship and nationality on the one hand, and French ethnicity on the other. I meant something like that. But I won't belabor the point.

I hope you don't think my words were too blunt, Tony. I respect you very much and I would never address you that way!

Level-headed? Well, I have this habit of treating people just as they treat me. So thank you, Tony! You're very kind. Enjoy the rest of the weekend! SamEV (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

References

O.K. Mr. Tony the marine. first off people in Puerto Rico don't refer to themselves as "Hispanics". That is a stupid term brought up by the U.S. government. There are whites, blacks, mullatoes and small groups of indians in puerto rico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.116.43 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Does it really matter where he was born, and what citizenship he carries? Mousemickey4 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Scar on lip reference problems

Reference 31 just links to an empty page. Jammycaketin (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked out reference #31 and your are right, it does not provide any reference to the subject posted in the article. Therefore, the paragraph along with the "so-called" reference goes out. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The link did provide a reference to the material [2] posted in the article, it just doesn't currently because the web site the link linked to no longer exists. You can see all versions of the page that was linked to here [3] at the Internet Archive. The relevant part of the interview is

Q&A With Joaquin Details, November 1995 By Joe Dolce. Joe Dolce of Details magazine sits down with a difficult Joaquin Phoenix for the interview of his life. Just who's interviewing who here? See for yourself.

"Somebody once said that what's interesting in beauty are the flaws. Tell me about the scar on your lip"

"When my mom was pregnant with me she was in a hammock on the beach and she got these intense pains, and she felt as if some force, God or whatever, had caused this. Then I'm born. A few weeks later she takes me to the doctor, he sees me and says, "Who did this harelip operation? That's the best operation I've ever seen." Mom said, "No one. He wasn't born with a harelip." I was just born with the scar."

It's always worth checking dead links at archive.org Ha! (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Awww bless him. He still believes the story his mommy told him to protect his feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.90.6 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be edited. I've seen a lot of harelip/cleft palate scars in my day and that's exactly what's on Joaquin's lip. Clearly it was surgically corrected. They may have done a great job, but it's still a cleft palate scar. Also, point to note... just be honest about it. It's a very common birth defect and going public with it would make thousands of other people who have had that problem feel better about themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.109.5.23 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and google "microform cleft lip". This is a known form of cleft.109.255.208.135 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, February 2009

Judging from the revision history, this incident has apparently been added and removed a few times since last night's show. Considering the incredible amount of press the incident has received today, with the the Associated Press calling the appearance a "classic" in one of its story headlines, I think the story deserves mention. --Mass147 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely, I agree with User:Mass147. Information which is added, as long as it is cited from a primary reliable source and not from secondary sources, is within Wikipedia policy. The important thing to remember is to not post rumors or baised information even if they are cited and sourced. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Letterman interview takes up just over 10% of the article (only counting text). That's an undue amount of space given to one event in this actor's life. This is an encyclopedia, not a "current news" outlet or "interesting movie star gossip" site. I think it needs to be cut down a fair bit, expressed in more neutral language (WP:BLP) and the majority of it needs to be moved out of the "Music Career" section. Specifically, none of the following is relevant to his music career and so doesn't belong in that section

He spent the interview giving short answers with bowed head and chewing gum... he was largely unresponsive towards Letterman's questions about the film and his acting career... Phoenix could not introduce a clip of the film, claiming he had not seen it, and didn't have any "fun stories" about the film's production... When Letterman joked about Phoenix's gum-chewing, Phoenix responded by taking the gum out of his mouth and sticking it under Letterman's desk. Dumbfounded, Letterman closed the interview by remarking "Joaquin, I'm sorry you couldn't be here tonight." At the end of the interview he immediately stood up to leave, removed his sunglasses and shook Letterman's hand again. Ha! (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that "Phoenix announced his retirement from acting and stated that he was going to be focusing on a music career" was removed from the Music Career section because it "really do not add anything to article and sentence which is rebundant in "Music career"". How come Pheonix chewing gum, not introducing a film clip, acting weird and being unresponsive, removing sunglasses and shaking Letterman's hand 'does' get to stay in the "Music Career" when it's irrelevant to a music career but the only announcement that exists where he says he's going to focus on his music career doesn't get to stay in the Music Career section because it's redundant! That doesn't seem logical. Ha! (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ha! How are you doing? In regard to your questions. What was removed was:

1. "Joaquin and River became the first brothers in Hollywood history to be nominated for an Academy Award in the acting category."

1. That lone sentence can be worked into a paragraph in his bio. with a primary reliable source other then "IMdB" which is not considered a reliable source per se.

2. "Phoenix has stated on numerous occasions that he does not watch his performances on screen."

2. This is more of a trivia sentence which unless worked into the article really does not add anything revelant.

3. "He appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman in February 2009, sparking speculation about the cause of his bizarre behavior"

3. This statement is already detailed in the "Music career" section and is redundant. As a matter of fact it even appears in the intro.

I don't see any mention of his "removing his sunglasses and shaking Letterman's hand", however the paragraph which you make reference to has been modified and basically focuses on his odd behavior in the Letterman Show which is news worthy, without entering into POV and letting the reader of the article to come to his/her own conclusion as to his actual state of mind. This is only my humble opinion. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely misread the changes. Ha! (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I thought that Ben Stiller's (who's name I missed) parody of Phoenix at the 81st Academy Awards was actually Joaquin Phoenix presenting, which I added as such... Sorry for that. Then again, Stiller's performance was very convincing :-). -Mardus (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of whether or not Phoenix was suffering from mental illness or under the influence of alcohol in the Letterman appearance is pure speculation and has no place in a neutral point of view article. In fact, the statement itself acknowledges that it is "speculation," but then by citing a separate source for this speculation pretends it is somehow objective. This is the same tatic the mainstream media uses, when citing tabloid articles in order to appear that they are not engaging in tabloid journalism. Another possible explanation is that Phoenix, having decided to leave the world of acting, is simply rejecting the dog and pony act demanded by Letterman's show, along with the trappings of celebrity. You can see in the video that Phoenix is clearly impatient and annoyed with Letterman's questions, sighing and ignoring him. In anycase, as it is written the paragraph comes across as a thinly vailed attempt to disparage Phoenix, by someone with a very narrow view of what's "normal" or "acceptable." The paragraph even goes out of its way to repeat one of Letterman's "funny" lines, for no apparent purpose other than because whoever wrote that part of the article likes the line. The following two sentences should simply be removed from the article, if the point is simply to note that the interview happened, what it was like, and that it gained notoriety. Again, these sentences seem to serve no purpose other than as a way to be indirectly derogatory and highly speculative: "At the end of the interview, Letterman said, "Joaquin, I'm sorry you couldn't be here tonight," followed by laughter and applause from the audience. There has been speculation as to whether Phoenix's behavior was part of an elaborate hoax (in the style of Andy Kaufman), whether he's suffering from mental illness, or if he is under the influence of drugs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki474 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed a sentence which is based on pure speculations. Speculations and rumors are not permitted in Wikipedia articles even if they are cited with a verifiable source. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• I still don't see the point of the sentence "At the end of the interview, Letterman said, "Joaquin, I'm sorry you couldn't be here tonight," followed by laughter and applause from the audience." It just seems like someone listing off one of their favorite lines from the interview and not descriptive of the event or the public reaction afterwards. Something better would be a statement like: "Letterman and the audience were derisive of Phoenix's appearance and behavior and the interview later became a news event, garnering a great deal of speculation with regard to what Phoenix was doing." A statement like this gives a sense of what happened and the public reaction, without explicitly or implicitly advocating for a particular interpretation of the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki474 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, 'derisive' makes it sound like Letterman was a bit of a dick. Sounds like a bit of POV thing in itself. Also, the second part of your suggested sentence makes it sound like Phoenix was up to something ("garnering a great deal of speculation with regard to what Phoenix was doing"), which I thought you were trying to avoid. That said, I'm not sure what to repleace it with. I would like some follow up on this, though: have there really been no developments on this front? I'd heard that Ben Stiller's younger brother was doing a doco about Phoenix, and the Letterman interview was meant to provide material for that film. Has anything more been heard about that? If there is such a film, how's it coming along? Has Phoenix made any appearances since which have put speculation to rest, one way or the other? [Etc.] All of which would be facts, I'd imagine. --203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Now that I look at it more, I also think "seemed completely coherent" should be changed in this sentence: "In an interview given earlier the same day for CinemaBlend.com the actor seemed completely coherent." The phrase "seemed completely coherent" implies that in the Letterman interview was incoherent, although it would be more accurate to say Phoenix was simply unresponsive (as the first part of the entry says). Phoenix does not babble or say anything incoherent in Letterman interview. Again, this phrase implies a certain assumption and speculation about Phoenix's state of mind during the Letterman interview. Also "seemed" implies that although Phoenix seems coherent in the CinemaBlend interview, perhaps he was just hiding the "madman" underneath, or something to that effect. There's no basis for this implication. It would be better if this sentence said: "In an interview given earlier the same day for CinemaBlend.com the actor conducted the interview in a normal, articulate manner."Wiki474 (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, isn't that a bit of a POV as well? I mean, 'normal' is notoriously difficult to cash out, so I think you must be putting opinion in here. I could just as well say that he was acting normal in the Letterman interview, because that's how we'd all act if we were on a big-time TV show (perhaps). I also think it's POV to say he was 'coherent;' though not for the reasons you cite, but because again I could say I didn't really understand some of the Hollywood cliches (or something -- it doesn't matter if that's true; just saying, it's not a fact of the order 'He had facial hair'). This is a hard issue to talk about in an Encyclopedia, because the fact that it became a big story is based on POV, but the fact that it was a news story is not. Maybe quotes from the news describing Phoenix and Letterman would be the best way to go? You know, if you're just commenting on the news story, then it seems eminently fair to me to say "The news said this." Maybe, to keep a bit of balance, you could put in any response Phoenix might have issued.--203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Speculation of Joaquin quitting Movies

Reported: Jan 27, 2009, 05:59 PM | by Josh Rottenberg

Two people considerably close to the Actor tell a news company, EW, that the recent reinvention of Joaquin from Actor to Rapper isnt what it seems.

Since Joaquin announced that he was quitting acting and going for the hip-hop scene, wild speculation has flowing about what the 2 time Oscar nominee is thinking. Following his 3 song debut at a Las Vegas Night Club on Jan. 16, 2009, which was a pretty bumbling act ending with the actor falling off the stage. 2 theories have emerged: 1. Joaquin is scheming an elaborate Andy Kaufman style hoax with help from brother-in-law, Casey Affleck, who has been ostensibly shooting a documentary (mockumentary) about his career transition. 2. Joaquin truly lost it and is now nuts.

The truth it seems is closer to Theory number 1. "He said, 'It's a put-on. I'm going to pretend to have a meltdown and change careers, and Casey is going to film it,'" says one source who recently worked with Phoenix.

source: ew.com

It has been recently reported that Joaquin Phoenix will return to acting in a feature film entitled The Beautiful Cigar Girl, which would star Phoenix as author Edgar Allan Poe during the final months of his life.

source: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmata (talk • contribs) 19:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix family

It says in the article that Joaquin is "one of six siblings", however John and Heart Phoenix only had 5 children together: River, Rain, Joaquin, Liberty and Summer. Someone with the ability should correct that at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.254.119 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that YOU have the "ability" to make these changes? Proxy User (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody tell me why it is thought appropriate to describe this family's father, John Lee Bottom, as a "lapsed Catholic" in the early life sections of Wikipedia articles on each of these children? The term is linked, and the Wiki article on lapsed Catholic indicates that it is a term only of any meaning or significance to other Catholics. Do the biographies of all film actors or other entertainers state the religion (or otherwise) of their parents? I do not think so. Why is this said here? Iph (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you. Who the hell cares about the political adn religious believes of Phoenix's family. This article should only make a breif mention of his family and concentrate on him only. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's there to give background info about his family's connection with the Children of God group - since the "Family background and early life" traces the Phoenix family's entry and exit from the Children of God, his father's lapsed faith is a part of it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • All Hallow's Wraith, excellent point. I retrack from my comments above. Now, that I think of it, it also gives us an idea of what went on during his formative years. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"References"

The "References" section is a bit messy. Some links are offered in a confusing manner. I'm not familiar with the subject or these references to make improvements. -The Gnome (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, citation 2, "The Associated Press: Joaquin Phoenix confirms he's done with movies". http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZsVtamTvqXUPYToH5LagzTJVTlQD946UCCO0. Retrieved 2008-11-04.", is a dead link. Attys (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics to His Rap Songs

Recent articles about Joaquin Phoenix and this Wiki article mention his new career as a rapper. (The article says, "most of the lyrics were unintelligible.") I'd love to know what he's singing / rapping about. It also appears that he likes Johnny Cash songs. Maybe we'll hafta wait 'till he puts out a Rap album. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Antics

Nothing about his recent antics at concerts and on Letterman? Seems to have gone a bit off his rocker. Here's an article if someone wants to start a section about his concert blow-up (I'd do it myself, but I'm more of a grammatical editor than a content person). http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/usa/article2315254.ece Baseballbaker23 (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree his recent weird behavior should be included. I have one question just to be sure. Is "The Sun" a "bona fide" newspaper or an unreliable "gossip" paper? Tony the Marine (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sun is somewhat "amarillista", they like to blow some things out of proportion, you can compare it to El Vocero. About his recent antics, they are probably related to that documentary, if included they should be added in a format that is easy to convert into something else. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

doesn't it seem like all the random crap about letterman and his antics such as supposedly attacking someone at the music show should all go under one section about "retirement from acting" ...it makes much more sense to talk about letterman and all the speculation about his mental state in connection with his retirement rather than including it as random bullet points under "personal life" or something...

The narrative is very self-explanatory: he surprised people by announcing his retirement from acting and desire to start a hip-hop career. after a series of odd public appearances (letterman, vegas, etc) speculation began (re: hoax, drugs, etc.) [perhaps adding a bit of direct testimony from the last director he worked with on Two Lovers: http://www.moviemaker.com/acting/article/james_gray_joaquin_phoenix_two_lovers_gwyneth_paltrow_20090127/ ] And then include whats been going on since then and whether he's avoided interviews and the like since then. done. This has been who he is for over a year now... seems silly to avoid it because it's supposedly "too tabloid"... Izauze (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

These "antics" are part of a complex spoof doucmentary being done by Phoenix and filmed by his close friend and brother-in-law Casey Affleck. It is rumored to be released in September 2010 and trailers are already on youtube.Cookiehead (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Herzog episode

We need to emphasize that the description of the event detailed here is only Joaquin's own story. I suggest we change to "By Phoenix's account..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacatnite90 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

New link to video about heckler attack

Link 36 to YouTube no longer works. "Phoenix jumped off the stage to attack a heckler during a concert in Miami in early 2009.[36]" this is a good replacement link, which includes a discussion about whether or not the attack was fake. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

"Phoenix was born with a birth mark on his upper lip which many have since mistaken for a scar." Can someone re-word this so it makes sense. I don't seem to be able to edit this page. I think it's supposed to say, "Phoenix was born with a birth mark on his upper lip which many have since been mistaken for a scar." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.69.189 (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Give me a reliable verifiable source (no fansite nor any thing similar) such as a newspaper, magazine and such. Once done I will fix it for you. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Thisissolame, 14 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Last line of the third paragraph saying "This, however, was later revealed to be a hoax, and was part of a mockumentary Phoenix was making with brother-in-law Casey Affleck.[4]" has no proof whatsoever. The linked source shows no proof that it is a hoax. This line should be removed. Thisissolame (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not sure if you clicked on the wrong source but the story cited ([5]) does state that it was a hoax. --Yarnalgo _talk to me 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no proof that he's really becoming a rapper either. It should be ignored altogether. Jp0291 (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

thats not a reliable source. i cant find any reliable sources stating this is a hoax. it may be, but either way we have blp problems: either he is crazy, or he's pulling a somewhat scary stunt, or ? its not our job to figure it out, only to report what reliable sources have said. the rolling stone link is gone, and i cant find it. i say remove all speculation that its a hoax, or any other unreliably sourced speculation. let someone else try.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.140.150 (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error?

Reading River Phoenix's page, their half sister is spelled there as "Jodene" but "Jodean" on this page. Which is the correct spelling? 123.243.174.95 (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Jodean, according to "In Search of River Phoenix" by Barry C. Lawrence. 26 December 2011

Edit Request: Hoax Confirmed by Casey Affleck in an Interview with the New York Times

{{editsemiprotected}} In an Interview with the New York Times, Director Casey Affleck confirmed that the episode has been a hoax ([6]). See below:

His new movie, “I’m Still Here,” was performance. Almost every bit of it. Including Joaquin Phoenix’s disturbing appearance on David Letterman’s late-night show in 2009, Mr. Affleck said in a candid interview at a cafe here on Thursday morning.

“It’s a terrific performance, it’s the performance of his career,” Mr. Affleck said. He was speaking of Mr. Phoenix’s two-year portrayal of himself — on screen and off — as a bearded, drug-addled aspiring rap star, who, as Mr. Affleck tells it, put his professional life on the line to star in a bit of “gonzo filmmaking” modeled on the reality-bending journalism of Hunter S. Thompson.

Inittab (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. Please describe the change you would like to make or leave the post as it is and someone interested in the article may take your suggestion and source and decide what content to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You have 11 edits now, so you should be autoconfirmed and able to edit this article yourself. Have at and enjoy! Celestra (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Include siblings Rain Phoenix, Liberty Phoenix and Summer Phoenix.

Include siblings Rain Phoenix, Liberty Phoenix and Summer Phoenix. 99.24.248.56 (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Source for this? Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs period.

In the opening of the article, a period is missing. I think other punctuation errors are within the article but can not be edited at this time. Not a big deal, just wanted to pass it on for someone to fix:

"Affleck made public that Phoenix was simply playing a role in a fictional documentary and that Phoenix's supposed "rap career" and public mental breakdown were all fabricated for the movie [3]" <--- add period before reference. 69.28.15.133 (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done This was done and no one left a comment here. Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 14:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Jodean

Corrected the circumstances of Joaquin's half-sister Jodean's birth - their father was fifteen when she was conceived and sixteen when she was born and never married Jodean's mother, so Jodean is from a previous relationship, not a previous marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.100.10 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Joaquin's Puerto Rican Nationality

People born in Puerto Rico automatically have dual nationality: Puerto Rican and American. Puerto Rico follows the Jus soli law (the right of the soil or the land) meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth.

Therefore, Joaquin is Puerto Rican and American due to the fact that he was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

History of Puerto Rican Nationality

On October 25, 2006, the Puerto Rican State Department declared the existence of the Puerto Rican nationality (see: Juan Mari Bras). Puerto Rican nationality was recognized in 1898 after Spain ceded the island to the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War. On April 12, 1900, the Congress of the United States enacted the Foraker Act of 1900. Section VII of this act created a Puerto Rican citizenship for the residents "born in Puerto Rico and, therefore, subject to its jurisdiction". In 1917, the United States granted Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship without the requirement that the islanders renounce their PR citizenship. Since then, everyone born in Puerto Rico are both Puerto Ricans and U.S. citizens. However, in Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican do not enjoy full U.S. citizenship rights because their rights as such are limited (For example: they can not vote in the Presidential elections). Puerto Ricans do not need to renounce either of the citizenships and do not need a passport to go to the continental United States and once there can participate in every activity as every other U.S. citizen. According to the United States Supreme Court, Puerto Rico belongs to but is not part of the United States.

There is a common misconception that all Puerto Ricans are of Hispanic background. The confusion stems from people automatically associating the term 'Puerto Rican' (nationality) with the term 'Hispanic' (ethnicity). Even though the primary ethnicity in Puerto Rico is Hispanic, there are numerous other ethnic groups which make up the Puerto Rican nationality. There are many Puerto Ricans of African, Corsican, French, Irish, German, Chinese, Dutch, Lebanese and of Jewish descent, among others.

Laws Concerning Citizenship/Nationality

The modern world is divided up into nations with each nation, at least nominally, exercising control over its own territory and the people who reside within that territory. Among modern nations, citizenship at birth is conveyed in one of two ways; either though Jus soli (the right of the soil or the land) meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth; or through jus sanguinis (the right of blood) where nationality is determined by the nationality of one's descent (parents). Birthright citizenship is the term used for Jus soli as it is applied under US law.

Tony the Marine (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Why bring this up? Where is any evidence that Phoenix identifies as specifically Puerto Rican, rather than American, to justify categorizing him as such, as *someone* has done? It's my understanding that Joaquin spent his first four years there, and his parents moved country quite a bit otherwise. If there isn't a specific reference where Phoenix addresses his national identity as Puerto Rican, I suggest keeping his nationality as American, since that is the simplest, rather than breed confusion/POV/vandalism accusations. If the evidence is there, of course, then fine. O0drogue0o (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Your revert was fine, acceptable and your edit will remain as such, however no one is categorizing him. As explained above any person born in Puerto Rico is Puerto Rican and also an American citizen. Same as anyone born in New York where you are a New Yorker and an American citizen. You are what you are period. Remember, Puerto Rican is not a race, it is a nationality. [7][8][9]. "Puerto Rican citizenship was first legislated by the United States Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act of 1900 and later recognized in the Constitution of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican citizenship existed before the U.S. takeover of the islands of Puerto Rico and continued afterwards. Its affirmative standing was also recognized before and after the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952. Puerto Rican citizenship was recognized by the United States Congress in the early twentieth century and continues unchanged after the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Is he notable for being Puerto Rican though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Name

Recent edits by LivinRealGüd changed the name from "Joaquín Rafael Phoenix (/ˌhwɑːˈkiːn/; born Joaquín Rafael Bottom; October 28, 1974), known formerly as Leaf Phoenix, " to " Joaquín Rafael Phoenix (/ˌhwɑːˈkiːn/; né Bottom; October 28, 1974) an added a note "In his childhood he went by the name Leaf Rafael Phoenix from 1979 to 1989. At age 15, he adopted "Joaquín Rafael Phoenix" as his given name." without changing the source.

I cannot check the source and I am not familiar with the subject but LivinRealGüd made a number of similar changes, many of which have been reverted by several editors. I see two problems: 1) adding a note that may be unsourced. 2) changing the name - was born (or née - is there really a difference for the purpose of names in wiki articles, and why not use the more familiar "born"?) not "Bottom" but "Joaquín Rafael Bottom" - the full legal name not just the surname. Can somebody check this and perhaps other edits by LivinRealGüd? @General Ization: perhaps? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, WikiHannibal! Yes, I just wanted to clean up its presentation as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Subjects with multiple names sometimes have them needlessly bolded (see Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained), with undue weight. Names change for a variety of reasons: marriage, personal reasons, assumption of political office, change of gender, etc. Each these instances have specific formatting as per Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes. For example, note the difference between Jeff Bezos and Bruce Jenner. Jeff Bezos' given name was Jeff Preston Jorgensen before it was changed to Jeff Preston Bezos (after his adoptive father). Note that only his surname changed. Because of this we add the né distinction to indicate that his last name changed. In the case of Bruce Jenner's gender transition to Caitlyn Jenner, her birth name of (William) Bruce Jenner was changed to Caitlyn Marie Jenner. Note that the given, middle, and surname was changed. In that case (per Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes) we note the legal name in the lede, bolded. It is a case by case basis and varies on the subject. Interesting case studies can be found with other articles (e.g. Napoleon) and this article. Hopefully that was explanatory enough, for more information see: Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes. All the best. LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am relly glad that you tried to explain it I do not know what to make of it. I looked at the links but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) does not say anything about "customarily add the né or née". Where did that custom come from? And could you please cite the specific convention from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) you follow when editing so that I can understand your reasons? (I did not find anything useful even at Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes.) Also not sure what your link to Bruce Jenner should have meant; for me it is an example of your edits that were reverted... So this was my response to your explanation but I still have more questions: 1) Is the note you added to this article Joaquin Phoenix sourced or not and if not why do you add unsourced info? 2) Do you think née/né is the same as given name? Because I think it is not. 3) What is the advantage of using née/né instead of "born"? The disadvantage is that it is not generally known, and cofusing. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, now I see that you changed your text I was responding to, so I will look at the new version and commanet on it. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So,after reading your new text, my questions remain. I have nothing against the explanation you provided, but my concern is with other aspect of your edits, as indicated by my questions above. (The only new question regarding your new text is about your "In the case of Bruce Jenner's gender transition to Caitlyn Jenner, her birth name of (William) Bruce Jenner was changed to Caitlyn Marie Jenner. Note that the given, middle, and surname was changed." It seems surname was not changed but I suppose that was just your oversight. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WikiHannibal, exactly. Because Bruce Jenner's (surname remained unchanged) the full name is spelled out. My apologies for the lack of clarity. Thanks for the questions. The né or née custom comes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Names. Perhaps more useful information will be found there. I was wrong with my Bruce Jenner edit, I was going to correct it but an editor got to it first. :) Let me know if you have anymore questions. LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the link, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Names, mentions né/née only as follows: Maiden names . It is common to give the maiden name (birth name) of a woman better known under her married name, for example: Lucy Washington (née Payne, c. 1772 – 1846), widow of Major George Steptoe Washington ...

As you can see, it is only about maiden names (e.g nothing about men, or "né") and only abut surnames. But in your edits you use né/née even when surname did not change; what changed was just the first name, or middle name, or their combination changes. "Born" is frequently used in Manual of Style/Biographies and I do not see a reason why it cannot be used even instead of née. But the main point is that né/née can be used only when the surname/family name is changed. I also repeat my questions you seem to have missed:

1) Is the note you added to this article Joaquin Phoenix sourced or not and if not why do you add unsourced info?

2) Do you think née/né is the same as given name? (Because I think it is not.)

3) What is the advantage of using née/né instead of "born"? (The disadvantage is that it is not generally known, and cofusing.)

I would welcome if you could go through your recent edits and undo at least those that introduced né/née incorrectly, and/or added unsourced information. You know better than anybody what changes you made and why. Thanks, --WikiHannibal (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that you added sources. Thanks. But sitll, "Aged four, Gladiator star Joaquin Phoenix, jealous of his siblings' exotic earth-hippy monikers, decided to change his name to Leaf." could mean he changed it in 1978 or 1979, isn't that so? Did I miss somethin else in the texts? WikiHannibal (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

To question 1: I didn't actually add any new information I just took what was already the main part and brought it into the lead. If there is a content issue with that you should contact the editor who added that in as they would know more about that. Question 2: née/né according to Given name is "used to indicate the name at birth". Question 3: The advantage to using née/né instead of born (which is instead moved closer to the date), is that you can shorten the lead sentence (see MOS:FIRST and MOS:FIRST). For names where just the surname was changed (in the case of marriage, adoption, etc.) it clarifies the lead sentence so it is easier to read. For example, William Jefferson Clinton (né Blythe III) is a lot easier to read than William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe II) was.... Yes, I realize I did a few edits incorrectly and have fixed most of them. I'm not adding any unsourced material in so far that I am not adding any new content whatsoever. All I am doing is reformatting the lead sentence to make it easier to read. Basically, if the surname has changed, I have used the ne/nee formatting. Fairly prominent articles feature that such as U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Bezos (which were there before I started editing). LivinRealGüd (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

References

i or í

If he using "í" in his name then this article should be moved to Joaquín Phoenix. Hddty. (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The í is a hypercorrection from someone. All the references in the article spell his name Joaquin including ref [2] that justifies his name change from Leaf to Joaquin and gives his full birth name. Ref [3] supports birth date only. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it should not, as per WP:COMMONNAME. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I am referring to this version. Hddty. (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

He and River Phoenix hold the distinction of being the only brothers to be nominated for acting Academy Awards

I thought the Afflecks had? --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The Affleck brothers have been. This is false info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.172.205 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Key word is acting. Affleck's only Oscar mominations (and wins) were for writing and producing. River and Joaquin were both nominated for acting Oscars. The sentence is correct. Crboyer (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it WP:OR or WP:TRIVIA though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Mobilize Earth

Pheonix's work with "Mobilize Earth" may be worth looking into. News is just picking up on this, eg 'Joker' star Phoenix takes aim at climate apathy with film about dying Earth, from Reuters. Esowteric+Talk 13:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Esowteric, in future you can use template:refideas instead of making a separate discussion section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

Under activism

During the 2020 Oscars (on the 9th of February 2020), he won the best actor Academy Award for Joker, and gave a passionate acceptance speech pleading for Animal Rights and regarding societal inequality and quoted his brother. Here is the transcript of his speech: "I’m full of so much gratitude now. I do not feel elevated above any of my fellow nominees or anyone in this room, because we share the same love – that’s the love of film. And this form of expression has given me the most extraordinary life. I don’t know where I’d be without it.

But I think the greatest gift that it’s given me, and many people in [this industry] is the opportunity to use our voice for the voiceless. I’ve been thinking about some of the distressing issues that we’ve been facing collectively.

I think at times we feel or are made to feel that we champion different causes. But for me, I see commonality. I think, whether we’re talking about gender inequality or racism or queer rights or indigenous rights or animal rights, we’re talking about the fight against injustice.

We’re talking about the fight against the belief that one nation, one people, one race, one gender, one species, has the right to dominate, use and control another with impunity. Sign up to our Film Today email Read more

I think we’ve become very disconnected from the natural world. Many of us are guilty of an egocentric world view, and we believe that we’re the centre of the universe. We go into the natural world and we plunder it for its resources. We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakeable. Then we take her milk that’s intended for her calf and we put it in our coffee and our cereal.

We fear the idea of personal change, because we think we need to sacrifice something; to give something up. But human beings at our best are so creative and inventive, and we can create, develop and implement systems of change that are beneficial to all sentient beings and the environment.

I have been a scoundrel in my life, I’ve been selfish. I’ve been cruel at times, hard to work with, and I’m grateful that so many of you in this room have given me a second chance. I think that’s when we’re at our best: when we support each other. Not when we cancel each other out for our past mistakes, but when we help each other to grow. When we educate each other; when we guide each other to redemption.

When he was 17, my brother [River] wrote this lyric. He said: “run to the rescue with love and peace will follow.”

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/movies/joaquin-phoenix-oscars-speech.html https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/10/joaquin-phoenix-wins-best-actor-oscar-for-joker Heroicsnail (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: A Wikipedia article is intended to be a summary of information regarding the subject. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The full text of this speech may be a better fit for his Wikiquote article. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Would this short version, without the speech, be better then? To add under activism?

During the 2020 Oscars (on the 9th of February 2020), he won the best actor Academy Award for Joker, and gave a passionate acceptance speech pleading for Animal Rights, regarding societal inequality while quoting his brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroicsnail (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In Montreal during lockdown?

regarding "Following the death of animal rights campaigner Regan Russell, who was killed by an animal transport lorry outside of a slaughterhouse in June 2020, Phoenix expressed his support by attending a vigil in Montreal [...]", how did Phoenix get into Canada? Was he already here, or was his coming considered to be "essential"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Archmage of the Aether (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not engage in WP:OR, merely follow the WP:RSs. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)