Talk:Michelle Rodriguez: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:53, 2 February 2007

Latest revision as of 04:53, 14 March 2025

(237 intermediate revisions by 83 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{WPBiography|living=yes}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Rodriguez, Michelle|1=

{{WikiProject Texas}}

{{WikiProject Latino and Hispanic heritage}}

{{WikiProjectNotice|Dominican Republic}}

{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-priority=Low|filmbio-work-group=yes}}

{{PuertoRicoproj}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|TX=yes|TX-importance=Low}}

{{LGBTProject | class=B}}

{{WikiProject Puerto Rico|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Caribbean|Dominican Republic=yes|importance=Mid|Dominican Republic-importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Television|lost=yes|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Women}}

}}

{{Top 25 Report|Apr 5 2015 (23rd)}}

[[/Archive1]]

== Legal Troubles ==

[[User:Themongrel|Themongrel]] 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Upon further investigation it seems that reference would soon become outdated as her website is updated.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

Dead in the show

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. [[User:LBear08|LBear08]] ([[User talk:LBear08|talk]]) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Lost spoiler because her biography does not need details about the Ana-Lucia character, that's what the Ana-Lucia page is for. cf. Maggie Grace's [[Talk:Maggie Grace|talk page]]. [[User:Fosterd2|DAF]] 04:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:

:[[TMZ.com]] is a blog. Blogs are not [[WP:RS|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 "'''''[[WP:V|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.

:[[User:Mdsummermsw|Mdsummermsw]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:LBear08|LBear08]] ([[User talk:LBear08|talk]]) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:I have not claimed that I am an admin or that you or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Rodriguez&diff=next&oldid=188395226 your friend]" need to check your edits with me first.

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

:[[User:Mdsummermsw|Mdsummermsw]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:LBear08|LBear08]] ([[User talk:LBear08|talk]]) 15:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks to you (and your friend). - [[User:Mdsummermsw|Mdsummermsw]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:LBear08|LBear08]] ([[User talk:LBear08|talk]]) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whoever put the spoiler without a warning on this page: thanks for ruining the second season of LOST for me!!!!! ugh. Crap like this is why some people hate Wikipedia. [[User:Sleeper99999|Sleeper99999]] 03:39, 4 October 2006 (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 [[WP:V|verifiability]] will always be the deciding factor. - [[User:Mdsummermsw|Mdsummermsw]] ([[User talk:Mdsummermsw|talk]]) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:

And in this case the truth was verified. So there we go. :) [[User:LBear08|LBear08]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Smokiewight|Smokiewight]] ([[User talk:Smokiewight|talk]]) 01:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

==Archive==

It does not seem right to have a mugshot of her in this article. The article on [[Cynthia Watros]], her Lost co-star who was also arrested that night, does not have a mugshot. Please see the discussion on that article. --[[User:71.146.0.135|71.146.0.135]] 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have again reverted the edits to the Talk archive (restoring the original version), as discussed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism&oldid=213867478#Vandalism_of_Yourself.3F here]. - [[User:Mdsummermsw|Mdsummermsw]] ([[User talk:Mdsummermsw|talk]]) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:The Archive, prior to refactoring, can be accessed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Rodriguez/Archive1&oldid=214198235 here]. - [[User:Mdsummermsw|Mdsummermsw]] ([[User talk:Mdsummermsw|talk]]) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:

==Fast & Furious 4==

.... Rodgriguez appeared on fast & furious 4 .... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.90.230.133|24.90.230.133]] ([[User talk:24.90.230.133|talk]]) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:

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

=="Production" Section of Career==

== Death ==

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.[[User:Kp.murphy|Kp.murphy]] ([[User talk:Kp.murphy|talk]]) 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I heard that the real actor is death from car accident few days ago is it true? [[User:62.0.142.121|62.0.142.121]] 19:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:No [[User:CynicalMe|CynicalMe]] 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== Staying subjective? ==

[[User:Themongrel|Themongrel]] 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The part about her being best known for "tough-girl" roles - how does one measure that? I vote it be changed. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.253.168.118|67.253.168.118]] ([[User talk:67.253.168.118|talk]]) 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== defamation ==

== what was her muslim boyfriend name? ==

whoever keeps listing Michelle as bisexual should be ashamed.she has not commented yet and it's unlikely to happen.unless she says so,please stop the slander.thank you.the mongrel 15:57 11-24-06

[[Special:Contributions/113.203.153.15|113.203.153.15]] ([[User talk:113.203.153.15|talk]]) 10:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

:I checked the source and it barely says that the subject has "experimented" with both sexes. It doesn't say she is bisexual. Until we have a source which says so, let's please not include it as a category. And before we include it as a category we should mention it in the article. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

== Ethnicity and rouding ==

In fact it clearly says she has experimented with both sexes. And K. Loken has admitted they are having an affair - if a one can say yes with a smile and a nod and a wink (one certainly can). "You can print it" she said!!! And M.R. said she is not gay. Conclusion: she is bisexual - by any reasonable standard of evidence.

(Math people: This is a horrible simplification. I'm trying to get the general idea across.)

The policy is: Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

"According to the [[PBS]] television show ''Finding Your Roots with Dr. Louis Gates Jr.'', Rodriguez is 75% [[Ethnic groups in Europe|European]], 23% [[African people|African]], and 4% Indigenous."

* The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question

* The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

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.

She has talked in interviews about her same-sex activity. She brought it into the public ___domain herself. The progress of the open public self-identification of bisexuals/homosexuals clearly relevant to public life.

<small>''[text deleted by Will Beback]''</small>

[[User:62.64.227.85|62.64.227.85]] 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Math deals in absolutes. The real world seldom cooperates. There are numerous ways this result is possible.

:::Who's K Loken? "Experimenting" is too vague to rely upon: it could be as little as a kiss that wasn't enjoyed. Please place a sentence in the article covering this, with the citations. Otherwise it's unsupported. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 11:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::::OK, I see it's in the article - I must have missed it before. It seems to meet the requirements of [[WP:LIVING]]. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 11:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

== defamation ==

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%.

You do not know she is bi!!! Just because Kristanna Loken says she did have relations with Michelle doesn't mean anything without Michelle backing it up and so far she hasn't !!!!! And Gwernol? Neutral point of view ? If that were true,then why put Michelle in the bisexual category when she clearly hasn't backed up Kristanna's vague statement made in the Advocate? Neutral? I think not! Sounds like you're on the gossip squad's side than the side of truth !! Everybody sees the article and it's all ,"huzzah,huzzah !! she's out!!" NO! She's not out until she is ready to !!![[User:Themongrel|Themongrel]] 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)13:43 11-3-2006

Using my imaginary variations here, we might have

:Poor grammar and excessive exclamation only suggest unprofessionalism and heated opposition which make your statements POV. "Female actors who are not lesbian but who experiment with and date women" would be a much better category name, right? ~<b><font color="purple">[[User:Zythe|Zythe]]</font></b>^{[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]} 16:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

::if that was meant to be cute Zythe..... it wasn't.and my use of exclamation points is none of your business. i was angry and i still am,so back off.putting her in a category which she doesn't belong in is criminal and this site should be ashamed.i saw this website talked about this morning on CBS and i'd like to take this opportunity to totally disagree on all the stuff said except the inaccuracy part.that one they got right on the nose.[[User:Themongrel|Themongrel]] 19:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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. - [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 02:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Agreed, she has made no statements, but actions speak louder than words. If her sexuality is undefinable, would LGBT actors suit better? Saying that, you have displayed an intense opinion on the subject. Be calm, be collect, be apathetic if need be. [[WP:CALM]], [[WP:CHILL]], [[WP:POV]]. Please don't become Michelle's personal defense, please understand statements are not defamation, and please understand Wikipedia is not regarded as a source of incredible accuracy, although it should attempt to be such.

: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 [http://www.pbs.org/wnet/finding-your-roots/video/adrian-grenier-michelle-rodriguez-and-linda-chavez/ HERE] watch vdo @47:30 mark. I will correct the info now.--[[User:Anen87|Anen87]] ([[User talk:Anen87|talk]]) 23:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

:::What would you like to see changes? What is your problem with the category? Can you think of a substitution? I'm not out to get you or piss you off, I was simply pointing out that getting angry over something like this and thinking it's a total disgrace lets a few of your personal opinions obscure any valid points you may be making. ~<b><font color="purple">[[User:Zythe|Zythe]]</font></b>^{[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]} 20:34, 10 December 2006 (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.[[User:CannotFindAName|CannotFindAName]] ([[User talk:CannotFindAName|talk]]) 12:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

==Ishkadada==

shouldn't there be something about her clothes line, and her designer Dana Young? [http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/new/ishkadada.htm] --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Amaas120|<font color="SteelBlue">andrew|ellipsed...</font>]]</font>^{[[User_Talk:Amaas120|Speak]]} 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== noBirth substituitions at allplace ==

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 [http://movies.msn.com/celebrities/celebrity-biography/michelle-rodriguez.1/ MSN bio we cite] says Bell County, TX. The [http://www.filmreference.com/film/14/Michelle-Rodriguez.html 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. - [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 16:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

actions are all they were.she did them 1:she was curious, and 2,to get a rise out of the people.she wasn't even in love with them at all.if she was she wouldn't have said what she said in that magazine interview earlier. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Themongrel|Themongrel]] ([[User talk:Themongrel|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Themongrel|contribs]]) 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== BLP noticeboard discussion ==

:there is not end to looking into people's minds - words and actions are sufficient anyway. Did you finish HS? [[User:62.64.227.74|62.64.227.74]] 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

== categorization ==

:The relevant discussion is at [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cara_Delevingne]]. - [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war going on regarding categorization as a lesbian. Please ensure that contributions adhere to policy shown at [[WP:LIVING#Use of categories]]. In this case, it is fairly clear from the article that the subject does ''not'' publicly self-identify with that sexual orientation. Such a categorization is therefore against policy. Thanks, [[User:Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć|Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć]] 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::Discussion archived [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive195#Cara_Delevingne|here]]. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 10:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:Bisexual, not lesbian. If you can't tell the difference then I'm not sure you making any judgements on sexual orientation categorizations what so ever. The policy clearly states "this does NOT allow for categorization based on sexual orientation which is alleged by third parties but denied by the subject". The subject in question, Michelle, has NOT denied Kristanna Loken's comments and as it as been several months since it was published, I believe that her silence on the subject is an admission that Loken's comments were in fact true. [[User:Pinchofhope|Pinchofhope]] 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

::Apologies that was an error, I should have said bisexual. [[User:Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć|Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć]] 16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

::See also [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_168#Daily_Mail|archive of RSN discussion]]. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 06:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

== Request for comment: categorization in [[:Category:Bisexual American actors]] ==

== A question regarding Rodriguez's sexual orientation ==

There is a dispute regarding whether the categorization in [[:Category:Bisexual American actors]] is in accordance with policy. 16:58, 7 January 2007 (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? [[User:Blaylockjam10|Blaylockjam10]] ([[User talk:Blaylockjam10|talk]]) 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

'''Statements by editors previously involved in dispute'''

: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."

*'''Statement from Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć'''

: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. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 12:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

:The policy relevant to the dispute is [[WP:LIVING#Use of categories]], which states:

::Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

:::The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question

:::The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

:The dispute is in particular regarding the first of these. An argument is being put forward (see above) that the subject's lack of denial of third-party allegations can be interpreted as a tacit admission. The opposing viewpoint, which I hold, is that this is not sufficient to satisfy the criterion, and that the categorization should therefore be removed.

:A number of recent edits (from various IP addresses) in which the categorization is re-added after removal by others are described in the edit summary as reversion of [[WP:VAND|vandalism]], or words to that effect. I believe this to be unhelpful.

:I have created this RfC in order to get a little wider input into this discussion from more experienced users. Having done so, I myself will step well back from this article, and trust that others will sort it out. Anyone wishing to contact me should use my talk page, as I might not be following the discussion. Thank you. [[User:Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć|Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć]] 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

==Girlfriend?==

'''Comments'''

{{Moved discussion to|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cara Delevingne|2=[[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}}

:Subsequently archived to [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive195#Cara Delevingne]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

{{archivetop}}

"Publicly self-identifies" is pretty strong language. I don't think it's fair to characterize refusing to contradict the identification of another as '''self'''-identification. Rodriguez's own web site, under "significant other," states that she is "single." Combine the ''extremely'' weak nature of any claim that Rodriguez has "publicly self-identified" as bisexual with the ''extremely'' limited relevance of her sexual preference to her "notable activities or public life," and I think the category tag is inappropriate. [[User:PubliusFL|PubliusFL]] 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:Considering that she publicly said that she had "experimented," it is now a question of whether that fulfils criteria of being [[bisexual]]. Given the flexible nature of the definition on that page, I can see why it would be difficult to settle the matter, but I'd say the best way to tell if Ms. Rodriguez is bisexual is if she were to use the word in reference to herself; failing any such references, I agree with [[User:PubliusFL|Publius]]. [[User:V-Man737|V-Man737]] 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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? [[User:Tomh903|Tomh903]] ([[User talk:Tomh903|talk]]) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:I am not aware of any [[WP:RS|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]]. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

:I concur with Publius and V-Man. The sources are too "thin" to support the categorical assertion. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reply [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]]. Now the [[Daily Mail]], [[Metro (British newspaper)|Metro]], [[Daily Mirror]], [[The Independent|Independent]] and [[Irish Independent]] are reporting on her relationship. Is that enough sources yet? [[User:Tomh903|Tomh903]] ([[User talk:Tomh903|talk]]) 17:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

::Add my support to the above views - a category does not allow the nuance that a case like this requires. Unless she explicitly self-identifies with it, it should not go in. Assertions from other people is not the same as self-identifying, and saying that a lack of response is a tacit admission strays well into the grounds of original research. [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 00:01, 17 January 2007 (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). [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć brought this to a RfC weeks ago. The results seem clear to me. Rodriguez has not ''publicly self-identified as bisexual'', and her sexual preference is not relevant to her ''notable activities or public life'' [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Use of categories]]. Furthermore, unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material must be ''immediately'' removed from biographies of living persons [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material]]. However, anonymous editors persist in reverting while steadfastly ignoring the talk page. I'm not sure where to go from here. [[User:PubliusFL|PubliusFL]] 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

:Yeah, it's a tough one. Dispute resolution relies on both sides at least being willing to talk. And this change is coming from changing IPs. If they change it again, perhaps try posting something at [[WP:ANI]]. [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

::Ok, editor came back again so [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Michelle_Rodriguez|I did]]. [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

===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 [[Wikipedia:Be bold|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<ref name="One Kiss">[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2593137/One-kiss-Cara-Delevingne-Michelle-Rodriguez-embrace-heading-music-festival-Miami-romantic-Mexican-getaway.html News report from the UK Daily Mail, noting Delevingne's previous relationship history and a March 2014 romantic vacation by the new couple], accessed 31 March, 2014</ref>, here<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10727222/Olivia-Inge-praises-brave-Cara-Delevingne.html Olivia Inge praises 'brave' Cara Delevingne], accessed 31 March, 2014</ref>, and here<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2592480/MOS-DIARY-Wedding-date-Caras-girl-Poppy-Delevingne-invites-model-sisters-girlfriend-Michelle-Rodriguez-big-day.html Poppy Delevingne Invites Model Sister's Girlfriend Michelle Rodriguez to her wedding], accessed 31 March, 2014</ref>.

''In fact it clearly says she has experimented with both sexes. And K. Loken has admitted they are having an affair - if a one can say yes with a smile and a nod and a wink (one certainly can). "You can print it" she said!!! And M.R. said she is not gay. Conclusion: she is bisexual - by any reasonable standard of evidence.

With that said, [[User:Mcelite|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. [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 03:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The policy is: Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

:The ''Daily Mail'' is a tabloid, which is generally not regarded as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for the [[WP:BLP|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.

* The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question

* The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

: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. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 04:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

She has talked in interviews about her same-sex activity. She brought it into the public ___domain herself. The progress of the open public self-identification of bisexuals/homosexuals clearly relevant to public life. [text deleted by Will Beback] 62.64.227.85 10:59, 28 November 2006 (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<ref>http://www.tmz.com/2014/02/18/michelle-rodriguez-cara-delevingne-lesbian-dating-couple/</ref>.[[User:Mcelite|Mcelite]] ([[User talk:Mcelite|talk]]) 06:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see it's in the article - I must have missed it before. It seems to meet the requirements of WP:LIVING. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:62.64.211.163|62.64.211.163]] ([[User talk:62.64.211.163|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/62.64.211.163|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::Wikipedia is not a [[WP:NOTGOSSIP|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 [[WP:BLPSOURCES|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. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 06:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

:She has ''not'' self-identified as one though. To have it admitted by someone else is ''not'' self-identifying; to talk about same-sex activities is ''not'' self-identifying; not refuting accusations of it is ''not'' self-identifying. It is not for us to judge whether or not she is bisexual, based on the evidence; the guidelines are clear. The issue is covered in the article, and is given enough space to explain the full situation. To put her in a category implies she has publicly self-identified, which she has not. [[User:Trebor Rowntree|Trebor]] 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Per Mr. Rowe's comment above about the ''Daily Mail'', I would point to [[Tabloid journalism#Red top|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? [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 18:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

::Exactly. I came across this at ANI, and thought I'd offer my thoughts. It doesn't matter if she talks about her same-sex activity; she hasn't declared she ''is'' though. Bisexual (to me) implies sexual attraction to both sexes. If she only just experimented, how can anyone else know that she was actually attracted to it normally, without directly coming out and saying "I'm bisexual"? Analogy: someone can have "relations" with a tree, but that doesn't indicate arbourphilia until the tree itself arouses said person ''because'' it's a tree. --Dayn 00:44, 2 February 2007 (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 [[WP:HEAR|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. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 06:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

::Agree 100% on self-identification. The only argument the anonymous editor has with respect to the "self" part, apparently, is Rodriguez admitting to unspecified experimentation. This could mean just about anything, including a kiss. Admitting to experimentation is not the same as identifying with a particular sexual preference. I imagine there are out gays (self-identified homosexual orientation) who have admitted to experimentation at some point in their lives with members of the opposite sex. That would not constitute self-identification as a bisexual. And self-identification is only one of the two criteria that ''must'' be met. The other is relevance to the subject's notable activities or public life. The anonymous editor's argument is that "the open public self-identification of bisexuals/homosexuals (is) clearly relevant to public life." This amounts to arguing that self-identification is ''always'' relevant, which does away with the second criterion altogether. [[User:PubliusFL|PubliusFL]] 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

::::You may be interested in this [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_the_Daily_Mail|archived RSN discussion]], especially where it relates to BLP articles. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 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. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 08:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

:::::Thank you, Helen, for your follow-up. I've researched the discussion about the DM on the page you cited; it is [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Reliability of the Daily Mail|quite extensive]]. The answers to my query on this were immediate, and instructive: [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail|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 [[WP:HEAR|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? [[Wikiquote:A Man for All Seasons (1966 film)|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. [[User:Jax MN|Jax MN]] ([[User talk:Jax MN|talk]]) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

::::::Adding link to [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_168#Daily_Mail|archive of RSN discussion]]. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 06:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::''[http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/celebs/celebrity-gossip/cara-delevingne-michelle-rodriguez-break-up Cosmopolitan UK]'' is not a tabloid. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small>^{<span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]]</span>}</small> 02:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}}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 "[http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/celebs/celebrity-gossip/ Celebrity Gossip]". The [http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/celebs/celebrity-gossip/cara-develingne-michelle-rodriguez-together-london 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 [http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/celebs/celebrity-gossip/cara-delevingne-michelle-rodriguez-break-up second Cosmo article] relies on ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|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." [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 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.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 15:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

== Bisexual ==

She does identify as bisexual. As reported [http://www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2014/05/20/michelle-rodriguez-asks-whats-wrong-with-being-bi-video here], she said "What’s wrong with being bi? I mean, '''we’re''' getting flack everywhere we go." (emphasis there mine). [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 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. [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 17:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelle_Rodriguez&diff=611260234&oldid=611257183 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. [[User:HelenOnline|<span style="color:green;">Helen</span>]][[User talk:HelenOnline|<span style="color:lime;">Online</span>]] 17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

::::Yup, I guess that counts. "I fall under the 'b' category" seems enough for our purposes.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|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? --<span style="color: #666666;">‖ [[User:Ebyabe|<span style="color: #666666;">Ebyabe</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Ebyabe|<span style="color: #666666;">talk</span>]]} - <small>[[Special:Contributions/Ebyabe|<span style="color: #666666;"><span style="cursor:help;">''Welfare State''</span></span>]]</small></span> ‖ 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BFundiJr84|BFundiJr84]] ([[User talk:BFundiJr84#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BFundiJr84|contribs]]) 11:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->