Talk:Michelle Rodriguez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Dominican Republic, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Dominican Republic. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

	Puerto Rico Portal Michelle Rodriguez is part of WikiProject Puerto Rico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the people, history, language, and culture of Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help with the tasks listed below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Please do not substitute this template.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Puerto Rico To-do: edit Article requests: Art of Puerto Rico, Lourdes Chacón, Dagmar, Law of Puerto Rico, Central Fajardo, Flora of Puerto Rico more Cleanup: Mona, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Puerto Rico, Ponce Massacre, Morovis, Puerto Rico, Bayamón, Puerto Rico, Caguas, Puerto Rico Verify: Dominican immigration to Puerto Rico Wikify: Ceiba, Puerto Rico Expand: Public welfare in Puerto Rico, Culture of Puerto Rico, Demographics of Puerto Rico, Geology of Puerto Rico, Transportation in Puerto Rico, Education in Puerto Rico, Communications in Puerto Rico, Public housing in Puerto Rico more Merge: Puertorrican people –> Puerto Rican Category Sorting: Category:Puerto Rican politicians, Category:History of Puerto Rico Images needed: Roberto Clemente

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

Themongrel 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead in the show

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 page. DAF 04:36, 4 May 2006 (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. Sleeper99999 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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. --71.146.0.135 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Death 2 defamation 3 defamation 4 Ishkadada 5 no substituitions at all 6 categorization 7 Request for comment: categorization in Category:Bisexual American actors 8 Removal of cited but "potentially controversial" material

[edit] Death

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

No CynicalMe 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Themongrel 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] defamation

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

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. -Will Beback · † · 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

The policy is: 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

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)

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. -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. -Will Beback · † · 11:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] defamation

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 !!!Themongrel 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)13:43 11-3-2006

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? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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.Themongrel 19:43, 10 December 2006 (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.

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. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ishkadada

shouldn't there be something about her clothes line, and her designer Dana Young? [1] --andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no substituitions at all

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themongrel (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

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

[edit] categorization

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, Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 20:17, 6 January 2007 (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. Pinchofhope 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

There is a dispute regarding whether the categorization in Category:Bisexual American actors is in accordance with policy. 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Statement from Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć

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 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. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

"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. 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 Publius. V-Man737 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Publius and V-Man. The sources are too "thin" to support the categorical assertion. -Will Beback · † · 02:40, 16 January 2007 (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. Trebor 00:01, 17 January 2007 (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. PubliusFL 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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. Trebor 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, editor came back again so I did. Trebor 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

The policy is: 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

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)

OK, I see it's in the article - I must have missed it before. It seems to meet the requirements of WP:LIVING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.64.211.163 (talk • contribs).

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. Trebor 00:21, 2 February 2007 (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)

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. PubliusFL 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above view of PubliusFL. CyberAnth 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And I like the tree analogy ;) Trebor 07:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of cited but "potentially controversial" material

CyberAnth (talk • contribs) recently removed a good deal of material from this article. Some of the material was uncited, and was removed appropriately. However, some of the material was cited to reliable sources, and probably should not have been removed. Cyberanth cited WP:Undue weight as the justification for the removal of the cited material; however, I think that reducing the "personal life" section to a crush on Colin Farrell is probably more disproportionate than making mention of the controversy over Rodriguez's sexuality (with appropriate citations). Similarly, it's misleading to suggest that the Hawaii DUI was Rodriguez's first run-in with the law. I'm going to restore some of the cited material that had been deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Information restored, with full citations. I condensed the info about the Hawaii arrest slightly: I don't think that we need to give a minute-by-minute account of the night of the arrest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)