Talk:Michelle Rodriguez

/Archive1

Legal Troubles

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 Upon further investigation it seems that reference would soon become outdated as her website is updated.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)

TMZ.com is a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. Reuters is one of the most respected news services out there. It is, quite clearly, a "reliable source" in every sense.

17 days vs 18 days is a technicality where a tiny partial day is counted for legal reasons, though virtually any person would say 17 days, the law counts it as 18. Your source, such as it is, explains this. Your edit did not.

I am restoring the Reuters source and wording to match. Your claims that the blog posting is "the most accurate article" and "one of the only articles which states the accurate amount of days" is moot. Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth." It seems odd to me to argue that a blog -- which presents a divergent reading -- is more of a reliable source that Reuters, et al. In any case, your text does not give the reasoning behind this divergent reading.

If you would like to expand upon the minor 17 vs. 18 day detail, I'd be more than happy to review your efforts.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:07, 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 have not claimed that I am an admin or that you or "your friend" need to check your edits with me first.

I have claimed that a blog is not a reliable source.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:42, 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)

Thanks to you (and your friend). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:42, 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)

"I'd be more than happy to review your efforts." was certainly not meant to imply that you submit it to me prior to making the change to the article or that you need to explain it to me. As always, I will review any edits to this (and many other articles) to see if they conform to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you and your various "friends" who edit nothing but this page and your talk page strive for verifiability and "truth", good for you. However, on wikipedia verifiability will always be the deciding factor. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:41, 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)

Archive

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)

The Archive, prior to refactoring, can be accessed here. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fast & Furious 4

.... Rodgriguez appeared on fast & furious 4 .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.230.133 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Her appearance in "The Fast and the Furious 4" is listed in the Filmography section, under the film's (somewhat confusing) title, "Fast & Furious". - SummerPhD (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Production" Section of Career

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)

Staying subjective?

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)

what was her muslim boyfriend name?

113.203.153.15 (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity and rouding

(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)

That citing is wrong and Michelle rounded/quoted wrong! Her exact numbers are actually 72.4% euro, 21.3% afro, and 6.3% nativeamerican; Originally reported by Henry Louis Gates HERE watch vdo @47:30 mark. I will correct the info now.--Anen87 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Rounding or uncertainties are not a license to say 2+2=5. You're supposed to pick a mean value such that the total adds up to 100%. As another editor pointed out, the actual results presented on the show added up to 100%. A correct presentation of results should not exceed 100% even if the components have a percentage uncertainty. In any event, Gates used one of those pop DNA tests on that show which even today are not very accurate but were very inaccurate then. People seem to think these mass marketed DNA tests are rock solid but the fact is they are not very reliable.CannotFindAName (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Birth place

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)

BLP noticeboard discussion

The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cara_Delevingne. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion archived here. HelenOnline 10:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See also archive of RSN discussion. HelenOnline 06:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A question regarding Rodriguez's sexual orientation

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)

Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."

Personally I don't consider an admission of experimentation to be self-identfication with a particular sexual orientation, and our BLP policy requires "the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research" so I would err on the side of caution in such instances and not do so. HelenOnline 12:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Girlfriend?

Moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Cara Delevingne

 – HelenOnline 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Subsequently archived to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive195#Cara Delevingne. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 April 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 am not aware of any reliable sources confirming the relationship that do not rely on secondhand information from unreliable sources such as The Mirror (who Rodriguez's rep says Rodriguez never spoke to). Please rather discuss at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cara Delevingne. HelenOnline 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply HelenOnline. Now the Daily Mail, Metro, Daily Mirror, Independent and Irish Independent are reporting on her relationship. Is that enough sources yet? Tomh903 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of quantity, it's a question of quality. If they are tabloids or quoting secondhand information from an unreliable source such as The Mirror, they are of no use. Once again, I must ask you to please discuss it at WP:BLPN which specialises in such issues (and because it affects more than one BLP article). HelenOnline 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Discussion resumed, April 2014

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, here, and here.

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)

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, which is generally not regarded as a reliable source for the biographies of living persons. See WP:BLPSOURCES. That leaves only the Telegraph source, which would be more likely to be considered reliable — however, that source doesn't show the Telegraph asserting that Rogriguez and Delevinge are dating. It merely shows the Telegraph reporting what Olivia Inge said about Rodriguez and Delevinge. That's not quite good enough, either, especially given the denial from Rodriguez's publicist.

Of the other sources you mention, only the Telegraph and the Independent would meet the reliable source requirements. If you can find one of those sources in which it is clearly asserted that the two are dating — and not just somebody repeating what could be considered gossip — then we can discuss including it, I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly stated by TMZ which is not a tabloid magazine or second hand source that Michelle Rodriguez is not in a relationship with the British model. This is coming directly from her publicist and the News source.Mcelite (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip platform or whosdatedwho.com, otherwise many editors including me would not want to be here. It is only as good as the sources it relies on. At what point do sources "turn into proof" as you put it? When it is reported in reliable BLP sources, not tabloids or celebrity gossip websites or sources that allude to them dating ("professing her love" for someone is not the same thing as dating someone), or sources that use words such as "supposed", "alleged", or "rumoured", or rely on unreliable, secondhand or anonymous sources. This will probably only happen if and when the people involved decide to go on public record in interviews with reliable sources. HelenOnline 06:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Per Mr. Rowe's comment above about the Daily Mail, I would point to the Tabloid journalism link itself, which you mentioned, which would seem to contradict this assertion. Sure, the DM is tabloid sized, but aside from an expansion of celebrity news, it nevertheless is a bona fide newspaper with a history of solid journalism. (OK, it's not the London Times nor the Wall Street Journal). But Josiah and Helen, is it on the other end of the spectrum? No, I don't think so. Besides, the references I cited in the DM aren't a sentence-long innuendo in a gossip column, which we'd all agree ought to be ignored, but these were full-on articles with photos, quotes and video. At some point - and we're getting close - the preponderance of evidence is looking more and more like Ms. Delevingne and Ms. Rodriguez have some kind of, well, something, that looks a lot like a relationship. So, where do we stop protecting delicate readers from reading about a fact that may be uncomfortable for some, and begin (again) summarizing the facts of these ladies' lives, like a fair article in an encyclopedia should? Jax MN (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you would like a more authoritative answer re using DM as a RS here, please raise it at WP:RSN. I have already answered your other question, but you are not hearing me. And please don't suggest anybody has a motive other than maintaining Wikipedia standards (see WP:NPA), you have no grounds for that. HelenOnline 06:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in this archived RSN discussion, especially where it relates to BLP articles. HelenOnline 07:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The issue here is not whether or not they are having a relationship. HelenOnline 08:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Helen, for your follow-up. I've researched the discussion about the DM on the page you cited; it is quite extensive. The answers to my query on this were immediate, and instructive: Please read here - as you can see, the debate continues. I would gladly dismiss The Sun (which I enjoyed reading before it implemented a firewall) and the Daily Mirror as Unreliable for WP purposes. But the DM? Whatever your and my view on this, I think this situation is fluid, and will be rendered moot soon enough by articles in news sources that are more widely seen as RS by both of us. And yes, I did hear you; that comment was unnecessary and unfair. I respect your opinion and engagement here. But to your point, "...and please don't suggest anybody has a motive other than maintaining Wikipedia standards... ", that does NOT mean I won't continue to profess that some WP editors DO in fact have lesser motives. "Anybody" is a superlative, which I normally would reject as an impossible bar of attainment. We all have biases, and we all have WP pages that we care deeply about, and will work to protect more aggressively than others. But is this one so important to me? But for Wales? Meh. I'll defer to your opinion (to refrain from what may fairly still be listed as not-fully-verified gossip, while good enough for me) until more acceptable RSs arrive. With a nod to the policy on BLP. Jax MN (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding link to archive of RSN discussion. HelenOnline 06:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan UK is not a tabloid. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:10, 30 May 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." HelenOnline 07:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We should not report tabloid gossip about who is dating who. Only once the relationship becomes confirmed by the couple and is somewhat long term should a short note about it be added. Wikipedia should not try to keep up with who is dating whom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bisexual

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)

That is arguably a better source than what is in the article (better quote, not so great platform). Why isn't it in the article? HelenOnline 16:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No-one came across it before with Wikipedia in mind?? The platform (FrontiersLA) isn't that great, but it's better that the source which is a Facebook posting of a link to a YouTube video. What's good about it is that FrontiersLA has a transcript of the video, which is what we need. I'll fold into the article. Tabercil (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have expanded it somewhat as she explicitly self-identified as bisexual in the interview and I think that is the most important part for our purposes. HelenOnline 17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I guess that counts. "I fall under the 'b' category" seems enough for our purposes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Mother's name

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)

Announcement time for Michelle Rodriguez to retire from feature film actress career

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)