This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michelle Rodriguez article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
To clarify, in regards to the announcement of her release from jail, I had originally referenced her official website. Upon further investigation it seems that reference would soon become outdated as her website is updated. So I changed it to the most accurate article on the subject. It was perfectly fine as this but per usual, there are individuals who only edit after someone else edits just for spite's sake. The reality is the TMZ article is one of the only articles which states the accurate amount of days served (18, not 17) and even states the reasons why (California's minimum of 10% law), supported by official statements from the sheriff's department regarding the issue. It is the most in-depth and accurate article on the issue, and should be left.
Secondly, I edited the reference link regarding her blog about her arrest and conviction. In the future I think it's best to link directly to her blogs themselves rather than link to news sites which merely summarize her statements, often misquote, and somtimes even establish an outright bias towards them. It's best that wiki users are able to read the blog itself in it's entirity, rather than be told what it says amidst insults and conglomerated misquotations. LBear08 ( talk) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, you are not Wiki admin, I don't have to check my edits by you first. You can't make a judgment opposite of what the state of California has said. She served 18 days, half days or not. That is a FACT that is not stated on Reuters. Find a new article from a "reliable source" (without any bias) that states she served 18 days and was released for overcrowding and I'll have no problem with it. Whatever reference used should reflect that fact. Find it and all is well. LBear08 ( talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I found an article myself that reflects 18 days and edited the reference. And it's from MSNBC. There ya go. Problem solved. LBear08 ( talk) 15:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There's more than one person out here (my friend who has no username included) who believes that truth and "verifiability" can and should go hand in hand. When you said "If you would like to expand upon the minor 17 vs. 18 day detail, I'd be more than happy to review your efforts." you are demanding I explain it to you before it is considered legitimate. That's not going to happen. Ever. Now, the problem has been solved so as you so often quote, let's focus on the content not eachother. Thanks. LBear08 ( talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
And in this case the truth was verified. So there we go. :) LBear08 ( talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
TMZ.com is a website,not a blog.i don't know where you got the idea it's a blog,but it's a gossip website. Smokiewight ( talk) 01:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have again reverted the edits to the Talk archive (restoring the original version), as discussed here. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
.... Rodgriguez appeared on fast & furious 4 .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.230.133 ( talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the small, one sentence "production" section of her career because it only contained brief information regarding the foundation of her own production company, "Cheshire Kat Productions," and that information had previously been mentioned in an above paragraph. I do not claim that the information is not encyclopediacally valuable; I just claim that repetition of such information does not necessarily improve the article. Kp.murphy ( talk) 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The part about her being best known for "tough-girl" roles - how does one measure that? I vote it be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.168.118 ( talk) 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
113.203.153.15 ( talk) 10:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
(Math people: This is a horrible simplification. I'm trying to get the general idea across.)
"According to the PBS television show Finding Your Roots with Dr. Louis Gates Jr., Rodriguez is 75% European, 23% African, and 4% Indigenous."
Various IPs continue to challenge this section because yes, 75 + 23 + 4 = 102%. One common "solution" offered goes against the source and changes the 4% to 2%. Changing what you do not understand is never a brilliant move.
Math deals in absolutes. The real world seldom cooperates. There are numerous ways this result is possible.
For starters, tests often have built in uncertainties. Each number likely represents the midpoint of the most likely range of possibilities. "74%" might really be a 95% probability that the actual figure is between 77.7 - 70.3%. (Note that this also means that there is a 5% chance the real number is higher or lower than that.
Now add in the issue of rounding. Maybe the range for that "74%" is 77.45 - 70.05%. The mid-point, 73.75% rounds off to 74%.
Using my imaginary variations here, we might have 77.45 - 70.05% (midpoint rounds to 74%) 25.35 - 20.65% (midpoint rounds to 23%) 4.45 - 3.55% (midpoint rounds to 4%)
Add up random numbers within those ranges, add them together and you will get totals of 107.25 to 94.25%. Horrors. If you could somehow find the absolute numbers, they would add up to 100%. We don't have those numbers. We have the rounded figures pulled out of the ranges that came from inexact testing results. Those numbers happen to total 102%. Life is like that.
Long story short: Don't change the text to what you think might make sense. The text should match the source, whether you understand it or not. - SummerPhD ( talk) 02:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the article says, "Rodriguez was born in San Antonio, Texas." However, the only refs in the article specifying (that I can find) don't support this and disagree with each other. The MSN bio we cite says Bell County, TX. The filmreference source says Bexar County, TX. I don't know how reliable filmreference is. MSN certainly is a reliable source. Comments before I change this to Bell County, citing MSN. - SummerPhD ( talk) 16:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Would the statement, "I've gone both ways. I do as I please. I am too fucking curious to sit here and not try when I can. Men are intriguing. So are chicks." be enough to label her as bisexual or LGBT? Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it the right the right time to add Michelle's supposed relationship with the British model Cara Delevingne? Editors have rightly been reverting edits confirming their relationship because the sources were a bit dodgy etc... but now the relationship is being "confirmed" by numerous British national newspapers. Should we start updating Michelle's relationship status? Tomh903 ( talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I really don't know where this discussion out to be inserted, because the article says "move it to the Talk page," the Talk page says it's been archived, so DON'T CHANGE THIS BOX, and other items have been archived to a link that says "DON"T EDIT THIS PAGE - GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION. Sigh. With that said, I am boldly restarting this discussion here, in light of the extensive publicity that has been spilled about this relationship. At what point do a preponderance of British and American sources begin to turn into proof, when they had previously been dismissed as 'tabloids'? The Telegraph, the Daily Mail, E! online, The Independent, and other sources have all given this gobs of ink. It's no longer second hand; there are lengthy videos posted showing these two women clearly in a romantic mood, snogging on the beach, gushing about each other, sharing every available moment together. Therefore, this seems like an accurate, simple and reasonable insertion:
Rodriguez is presently dating American actress Cara Delevingne. Referenced here [1], here [2], and here [3].
With that said, Mcelite, you reverted my insertion of this well-documented edit from a few hours ago, and I would kindly ask you to consider all this and change it back. Jax MN ( talk) 03:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Both Cosmo articles are explicity labelled " Celebrity Gossip". The first Cosmo article relies on the Daily Mirror which is not a RS and is qualified as follows: "Rumoured love", "alleged actress girlfriend", "Rumours first surfaced", and "rumoured romance". The second Cosmo article relies on The Sun which is not an RS and is qualified as follows: "apparently breaks up", "It looks like", "It seems", "Apparently it was", "Despite rumours". It doesn't matter what the publication is, this is tabloid gossip and doesn't belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOTGOSSIP: "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Scandal mongering, promoting things 'heard through the grapevine' or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." Helen Online 07:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
She does identify as bisexual. As reported here, she said "What’s wrong with being bi? I mean, we’re getting flack everywhere we go." (emphasis there mine). Tabercil ( talk) 16:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Her mother's maiden name information does not seem to appear in any of the references used for it. Is there anywhere else to look, or should the info be removed? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 04:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Michelle Rodriguez has announcement to says goodbye for feature film acting career over the last 21 years makes to move back home from the West Coast to San Antonio, Texas for the first time 31 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFundiJr84 ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michelle Rodriguez article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
To clarify, in regards to the announcement of her release from jail, I had originally referenced her official website. Upon further investigation it seems that reference would soon become outdated as her website is updated. So I changed it to the most accurate article on the subject. It was perfectly fine as this but per usual, there are individuals who only edit after someone else edits just for spite's sake. The reality is the TMZ article is one of the only articles which states the accurate amount of days served (18, not 17) and even states the reasons why (California's minimum of 10% law), supported by official statements from the sheriff's department regarding the issue. It is the most in-depth and accurate article on the issue, and should be left.
Secondly, I edited the reference link regarding her blog about her arrest and conviction. In the future I think it's best to link directly to her blogs themselves rather than link to news sites which merely summarize her statements, often misquote, and somtimes even establish an outright bias towards them. It's best that wiki users are able to read the blog itself in it's entirity, rather than be told what it says amidst insults and conglomerated misquotations. LBear08 ( talk) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, you are not Wiki admin, I don't have to check my edits by you first. You can't make a judgment opposite of what the state of California has said. She served 18 days, half days or not. That is a FACT that is not stated on Reuters. Find a new article from a "reliable source" (without any bias) that states she served 18 days and was released for overcrowding and I'll have no problem with it. Whatever reference used should reflect that fact. Find it and all is well. LBear08 ( talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I found an article myself that reflects 18 days and edited the reference. And it's from MSNBC. There ya go. Problem solved. LBear08 ( talk) 15:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There's more than one person out here (my friend who has no username included) who believes that truth and "verifiability" can and should go hand in hand. When you said "If you would like to expand upon the minor 17 vs. 18 day detail, I'd be more than happy to review your efforts." you are demanding I explain it to you before it is considered legitimate. That's not going to happen. Ever. Now, the problem has been solved so as you so often quote, let's focus on the content not eachother. Thanks. LBear08 ( talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
And in this case the truth was verified. So there we go. :) LBear08 ( talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
TMZ.com is a website,not a blog.i don't know where you got the idea it's a blog,but it's a gossip website. Smokiewight ( talk) 01:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have again reverted the edits to the Talk archive (restoring the original version), as discussed here. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
.... Rodgriguez appeared on fast & furious 4 .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.230.133 ( talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the small, one sentence "production" section of her career because it only contained brief information regarding the foundation of her own production company, "Cheshire Kat Productions," and that information had previously been mentioned in an above paragraph. I do not claim that the information is not encyclopediacally valuable; I just claim that repetition of such information does not necessarily improve the article. Kp.murphy ( talk) 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The part about her being best known for "tough-girl" roles - how does one measure that? I vote it be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.168.118 ( talk) 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
113.203.153.15 ( talk) 10:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
(Math people: This is a horrible simplification. I'm trying to get the general idea across.)
"According to the PBS television show Finding Your Roots with Dr. Louis Gates Jr., Rodriguez is 75% European, 23% African, and 4% Indigenous."
Various IPs continue to challenge this section because yes, 75 + 23 + 4 = 102%. One common "solution" offered goes against the source and changes the 4% to 2%. Changing what you do not understand is never a brilliant move.
Math deals in absolutes. The real world seldom cooperates. There are numerous ways this result is possible.
For starters, tests often have built in uncertainties. Each number likely represents the midpoint of the most likely range of possibilities. "74%" might really be a 95% probability that the actual figure is between 77.7 - 70.3%. (Note that this also means that there is a 5% chance the real number is higher or lower than that.
Now add in the issue of rounding. Maybe the range for that "74%" is 77.45 - 70.05%. The mid-point, 73.75% rounds off to 74%.
Using my imaginary variations here, we might have 77.45 - 70.05% (midpoint rounds to 74%) 25.35 - 20.65% (midpoint rounds to 23%) 4.45 - 3.55% (midpoint rounds to 4%)
Add up random numbers within those ranges, add them together and you will get totals of 107.25 to 94.25%. Horrors. If you could somehow find the absolute numbers, they would add up to 100%. We don't have those numbers. We have the rounded figures pulled out of the ranges that came from inexact testing results. Those numbers happen to total 102%. Life is like that.
Long story short: Don't change the text to what you think might make sense. The text should match the source, whether you understand it or not. - SummerPhD ( talk) 02:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the article says, "Rodriguez was born in San Antonio, Texas." However, the only refs in the article specifying (that I can find) don't support this and disagree with each other. The MSN bio we cite says Bell County, TX. The filmreference source says Bexar County, TX. I don't know how reliable filmreference is. MSN certainly is a reliable source. Comments before I change this to Bell County, citing MSN. - SummerPhD ( talk) 16:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Would the statement, "I've gone both ways. I do as I please. I am too fucking curious to sit here and not try when I can. Men are intriguing. So are chicks." be enough to label her as bisexual or LGBT? Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it the right the right time to add Michelle's supposed relationship with the British model Cara Delevingne? Editors have rightly been reverting edits confirming their relationship because the sources were a bit dodgy etc... but now the relationship is being "confirmed" by numerous British national newspapers. Should we start updating Michelle's relationship status? Tomh903 ( talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I really don't know where this discussion out to be inserted, because the article says "move it to the Talk page," the Talk page says it's been archived, so DON'T CHANGE THIS BOX, and other items have been archived to a link that says "DON"T EDIT THIS PAGE - GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION. Sigh. With that said, I am boldly restarting this discussion here, in light of the extensive publicity that has been spilled about this relationship. At what point do a preponderance of British and American sources begin to turn into proof, when they had previously been dismissed as 'tabloids'? The Telegraph, the Daily Mail, E! online, The Independent, and other sources have all given this gobs of ink. It's no longer second hand; there are lengthy videos posted showing these two women clearly in a romantic mood, snogging on the beach, gushing about each other, sharing every available moment together. Therefore, this seems like an accurate, simple and reasonable insertion:
Rodriguez is presently dating American actress Cara Delevingne. Referenced here [1], here [2], and here [3].
With that said, Mcelite, you reverted my insertion of this well-documented edit from a few hours ago, and I would kindly ask you to consider all this and change it back. Jax MN ( talk) 03:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Both Cosmo articles are explicity labelled " Celebrity Gossip". The first Cosmo article relies on the Daily Mirror which is not a RS and is qualified as follows: "Rumoured love", "alleged actress girlfriend", "Rumours first surfaced", and "rumoured romance". The second Cosmo article relies on The Sun which is not an RS and is qualified as follows: "apparently breaks up", "It looks like", "It seems", "Apparently it was", "Despite rumours". It doesn't matter what the publication is, this is tabloid gossip and doesn't belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOTGOSSIP: "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Scandal mongering, promoting things 'heard through the grapevine' or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." Helen Online 07:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
She does identify as bisexual. As reported here, she said "What’s wrong with being bi? I mean, we’re getting flack everywhere we go." (emphasis there mine). Tabercil ( talk) 16:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Her mother's maiden name information does not seem to appear in any of the references used for it. Is there anywhere else to look, or should the info be removed? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 04:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Michelle Rodriguez has announcement to says goodbye for feature film acting career over the last 21 years makes to move back home from the West Coast to San Antonio, Texas for the first time 31 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFundiJr84 ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)