Jump to content

Talk:Gisele Bündchen: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 78: Line 78:
:::Again, whether or not she is an expert in concussions is not justification for reverting a strongly sourced edit. Obviously this is notable if the NFL opened an investigation in conjunction with the Players union because of her interview. In fact, I'll be adding that shortly. What part of [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] are you citing? [[User:The Kingfisher|The Kingfisher]] ([[User talk:The Kingfisher|talk]]) 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
:::Again, whether or not she is an expert in concussions is not justification for reverting a strongly sourced edit. Obviously this is notable if the NFL opened an investigation in conjunction with the Players union because of her interview. In fact, I'll be adding that shortly. What part of [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] are you citing? [[User:The Kingfisher|The Kingfisher]] ([[User talk:The Kingfisher|talk]]) 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
::::The part that says, "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." As for her opinion about concussions, she is not an expert on concussion. Why would we have her opinion on peace in the Middle East or stem-cell research? The only reason she is speaking about concussions is in the context of her husband, and it is non-notable that a wife may be concerned about her husband's health.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 02:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
::::The part that says, "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." As for her opinion about concussions, she is not an expert on concussion. Why would we have her opinion on peace in the Middle East or stem-cell research? The only reason she is speaking about concussions is in the context of her husband, and it is non-notable that a wife may be concerned about her husband's health.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 02:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I get the part that states because something is merely true doesn't automatically make it suitable, but you have yet to point out on what basis these strongly sourced edits that are obviously WP:NOTE are in fact [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]]. I'm not going to place much more effort on your revert and this discussion. Soon I'll create an RfC. [[User:The Kingfisher|The Kingfisher]] ([[User talk:The Kingfisher|talk]]) 03:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:01, 19 May 2017

pronunciation of name in German

Why is her name given in German? From the article, it seems this is original research as she didn't grow up speaking German, so it must be someone's reconstruction or guess. On the other hand, it would be relevant to tell us how to pronounce her name the way she does, whether we call it Portuguese or English. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gisele Bündchen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gisele Bündchen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Has A Twin

Upon some minor editing of this article, I discovered a source didn't quite bear out a statement made in this article. It wasn't a big deal; it was easily fixed. However, upon my research of the comment, I came across something I found peculiar. There is a self-published book called "Gisele Bündchen, A Biography" by someone named Alexis Ryan that is a perfect replica of Wikipedia's article. They both even contain the same writing mistakes and sourcing problems. For example, this article states that "She supports many charities including...Doctors without Borders..." Obviously, the word "without" in that sentence is improperly lowercased. The exact mistake has been made in this book. Clearly, one came from the other. I just don't know which came first. The full information regarding this book is: 

   Paperback: 34 pages
   Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (March 29, 2017)
   Language: English
   ISBN-10: 1545011680
   ISBN-13: 978-1545011683

Thirty-four pages is awfully short for a biography. Forgive me if I'm just wasting space here with this concern, but I stumble upon this kind of thing often in checking sources in Wikipedia articles – where the entire article can be found word-for-word in another location. My questions run from "Is this acceptable to Wikipedia or a common practice" to "are there any concerns by Wikipedia regarding plagiarism, whether it is the 'perpetrator' or the victim?" I appreciate any commentary on this issue. Please note: I'm not referencing situations where sourced material is word-for-word from its source, as it should be. I'm talking about the entire articles being identical. Also, if this is an inappropriate location for this section, please forgive my ignorance and direct me to where this should be placed. MarydaleEd (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to say, this is a completely appropriate concern, and thank you for bringing it up. CreateSpace is a self-publishing platform, and it's not uncommon for (I believe unethical) parties to use bots to lift free Wikipedia articles in their entirety and create books for sale to unsuspecting people who don't realize they could get the same information (and properly updated) without cost. Given the date of the CreateSpace book and the dates this article was created and was updated, that seems to be the case here. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable Sources

This article of Gisele Bündchen might be the death of me. I'm not sure what to do with these unverifiable sources. So many statements and quotes are attributed to a single source, indexed as [20], "Sullivan, Robert. "Profile". Vogue.com. Retrieved 7 January 2013." I cannot find, even in Vogue archives, any "Profile" by Robert Sullivan or anything within Vogue that includes any of the statements or quotes attributed to that article. If one attributes information to a source that is impossible to locate and verify, the information might as well not be sourced at all. What is done in these situations?

Another issue I'm having with this article and am seeking assistance for is a statement the author made under the "1997–2000: Career beginnings" heading. The statement is "The Vogue online encyclopedia of models states, 'As the year 2000 approached, Gisele Bündchen was the world's hottest model, opening up a new category in the popular imagination: the Brazilian bombshell.'"[20] There's that [20] reference again. But in this situation, the problem I'm having is the reference to "The Vogue online encyclopedia of models." I've never heard of such an encyclopedia and the Internet doesn't appear to have, either. I've looked everywhere. Does anyone know of "The Vogue online encyclopedia of models" who can help? This isn't a badly written article. It just appears to be a badly sourced article, and that is worse. Is it possible to locate the author of this article and try to locate this unverifiable source that way? Otherwise, I would be inclined to remove all statements and quotes attributed to that source. MarydaleEd (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady

I'm beginning a discussion about the propriety of adding a paragraph about the subject's thoughts on the possibility of husband Tom Brady possibly betting concussions. This seems more suitable to the Tom Brady article than than to Gisele Bündchen's. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if it is "suitable" or not for the Tom Brady article is not the issue. This is an international story that involves Bündchen because it was Bündchen's television interview about Brady having a concussion in 2016 when none were reported to the NFL. This is WP:NOTE and WP:RS: CBS News, CNN, ESPN, Washington Post, Forbes, Vogue, Fox Sports, Business Insider India, et al.
Exactly what policies are you citing as to why this should not be included in her article? The Kingfisher (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. She is not an expert on concussions, and it is non-notable that a wife would be concerned about her husband's health. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, whether or not she is an expert in concussions is not justification for reverting a strongly sourced edit. Obviously this is notable if the NFL opened an investigation in conjunction with the Players union because of her interview. In fact, I'll be adding that shortly. What part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE are you citing? The Kingfisher (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The part that says, "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." As for her opinion about concussions, she is not an expert on concussion. Why would we have her opinion on peace in the Middle East or stem-cell research? The only reason she is speaking about concussions is in the context of her husband, and it is non-notable that a wife may be concerned about her husband's health.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get the part that states because something is merely true doesn't automatically make it suitable, but you have yet to point out on what basis these strongly sourced edits that are obviously WP:NOTE are in fact WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not going to place much more effort on your revert and this discussion. Soon I'll create an RfC. The Kingfisher (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gisele_Bündchen&oldid=781106040"