Talk:Amanda Righetti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Women (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Amanda's Birthday[edit]

I've found a site that states her birthday as April 1, 1984 and one that is August 5, 1984. Can anyone confirm? -- Hotwine8, 18:55, 20 January 2006

69.229.11.195 fixed two things but 77.182.137.4 reverted them. Why? Amanda's official site http://www.amandarighetti.com/Bio.aspx confirms that she was "Born in St. George, Utah." but raised in Las Vegas. That is something 69.229.11.195 had fixed. It is also now clear that her real year or birth is 1983 rather than 1984. According to 69.229.11.195, the info on her birthdate being April 4, 1983 comes from Amanda herself.

Here are more sources and facts that imply a birth year of 1983:

  • The October 2004 issue of FHM, page 108, quotes Amanda: "I'm only 21, but I'm in a mellow stage of life right now." 2004-21 = 1983.
  • The September 2005 issue of venice, page 10, says: "At 22, Amanda Righetti seems to be on the fast track in Hollywood. ... Born and raised in Las Vegas, she moved to Los Angeles at age 18, another pretty, starry-eyed theater girl with dreams of making it big in the entertainment industry." I don't know why the article said she was born in Las Vegas, though. 2005-22 = 1983.
  • "Angel Blade" was filmed in 2001 and in it Amanda is not only nude but in simulated sex scenes too. In the United States, a realistic full-body portrayal of simulated sex is usually considered, legally speaking, something that only actors and actresses aged 18 and older can engage in on-camera. If April 1, 1984 was her birthdate, she would be only 17 during the entirety of 2001. "Angel Blade" was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on 9 May 2002, by Revolution Film Works, Ltd., and its Registration Number is PAu-2-660-185. Films get registered with the Copyright Office after they have been finished (including post-production). But the copyright date shown at the end of the credits in the end of the film is 2001, not 2002. The production company's website as of 5 February 2002 said: We are currently in post production for our feature film,"Angel Blade", starring David Heavener, Marc Singer, Margot Kidder, Richard Moll, Dan Martin, Louis Mandylor and Amanda Righetti. (archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20020205044523/http://www.revolutionfilmworks.com/). This means that according to their own words the filming definitely concluded before 5 February 2002, and they had already begun work on editing and other tasks. The fact that filming took place in 2001 is confirmed by Norm Clarke's column dated 31 March 2002 for the Las Vegas Review-Journal (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Mar-31-Sun-2002/news/18411885.html) which states: "Angel Blade," an erotic psychological thriller, was filmed here last year. David Heavener has also stated that the film was originally to be shot beginning on 1 April 2001, but that the filming got postponed. It is clear that filming of Amanda's sex scenes took place sometime between 2 April 2001 and 31 December 2001. On the DVD commentary section about scenes featuring Amanda Righetti, David Heavener said: "You better believe unexplored, she only just turned 18 years old." Since they are talking about kissing scenes, and this is in the context of her age in the film, that implies to me that she was 18 when the sex scene was made.
  • The user "Rodrageous" on 15 August 2004 claimed in the "IMDb message board for Amanda Righetti" attached to her biography page: She's 21. A year behind me at Green Valley high school. Worked with and knew her in the theatre dept. ... She was class of 2001 ... 2004-21 = 1983.
  • The user "lordstanley9192" in July and August 2004 wrote, in the same IMDb board: i went to middle school with her here in las vegas. i know she was one year ahead of me so im sure shes 21. Again, 2004-21 = 1983.

The confusion might stem from the following sources:

  • The October 2005 issue of FHM claims Amanda was born in 1984.
  • The May 2006 issue of FHM says Amanda Righetti was 22. (Though that was probably the age she was when they wrote the piece, not when it was published.)
  • IMDb, which sometimes has fraudulent birthdates on actors and actresses, lists "1 April 1984" as Amanda's birthdate on her profile at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1119462/ but the authority of the person who added the data is unknown.

-- The above response was posted on 2 April 2007 by a three-member research team

Fair Use[edit]

Anyone can look at the cover at the newstand, therefore the image would qualify under fair use.--Nick Dillinger 22:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Righetti: italian or not?[edit]

Amanda Righetti can be an italian name, but in a famous italian movie there is a character called "Amanda Righetti": are you sure it's her real name? --Friends007 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Pregnant?[edit]

Is her pregnancy going to be written into the show? It's not obvious yet, but you can see it in her hips. Won't be able to hide it for much longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.91.104 (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, right...just because an actress doesn't fit the stereotypical Hollywood skin-and-bones look, she must be pregnant. She's not, obviously. Look at recent pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.146.190 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not "confidential"[edit]

Re: this edit, which claimed that her switching talent agencies was confidential information. It is not: It is business-oriented news publicly reported in a major trade publication. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

IMDb[edit]

Wikipedia does not consider IMDb a reliable source. Two editors have removed individual citation requests, and I have not reverted. Instead, I have begun a dialogue on the second editor's talk page. Template tags, however, should not be removed without discussion; I have added a preexisting template tag. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding the edit-summary messages: The first editor who removed the citation requests wrote, "removing several citation tags, the imdb page is ref below." When the cite reqs were restored, the second editor wrote, "Don't think you understood previous editor, IMDb is *not* being used as ref, it *is* being used as EL."
However, the first editor specifically says that IMDb is being used as a reference: "ref" means "reference." And IMDb can only be a "for further reading" External link and not a reference. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Being born does not create a notable link[edit]

People should not be categorized by where they were born, only where they were raised. If a person was not raised there, having been born there is just a trivial detail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion, one which is not supported by Wikipedia:Categorization. We don't operate on POV, but on facts. All we can do is list the pertinent fact — and birth place by any biographical standard is a pertinent fact — and let readers conclude whether it's "a trivial detail" or not. That's not for you or me to say. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not my opinion. It is the long agreed upon fact. There are clear statements that in general the location of someone's birth is trivial. Place of birth is included in articles, but people should be categorized as "from" where they were raised, not just where they were born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Categorization of people under place states "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This clearly indicates we do not categorize people merely by where they were born, but by where they were raised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Filmography[edit]

An editor has begun edit-warring in the Filmography section, reverting to a version requiring two footnotes when one will do. Per WP:BRD, after his edit was overturned and status quo returned, protocol is to discuss his edit on the talk page and try to reach consensus with other editors. I invited him to come here and do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, disagreeing with you is not edit-warring. I gave reasoning for my edits, which is that the extra info you want to add (i.e. an alternate name for a film) is something that is suitable for an explanatory note. It doesn't "require" two notes when "one will do": one of the footnotes is a standard reference/citation and the other is, well, a note, additional information that is perhaps of use but not the main focus of the cell (i.e. the title of the film). It's debatable whether the alternate title should even be present in this table as there's no indication it's sufficiently well-known by that title to be included (since the movie itself apparently doesn't warrant its own article). But whether the 2nd title is trivial or not, it certainly doesn't belong in the title cell along with the primary one (fwiw IMDb lists the second title as the alternate UK title, and given the film is American, this obviously makes that title less noteworthy than its primary one in its market of origin). The {{efn}} template is perfect for adding this kind of secondary info. As per its documentation, Explanatory footnotes or Efn are footnotes which give something more than just a reference.
Also, in reversing my last edit, you reintroduced an error in the table. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, once reverted, protocol is to discuss the reverted edit on the talk page and try to reach consensus with other editors. Continuing to insert is edit-warring.
The only reliable cited source I could find for this movie shows the titles in the order given. If there's a reliable source that could be cited with the titles reversed, then substitute that.
Alternate titles are given within filmographies all the time in Wikipedia. It's neat, concise and uncluttered. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
All due respect, but an uncluttered and concise manner to include it would be the format where it's included with a note, rather than jamming two titles into a single cell. Obviously a superscript notation is more concise in a table than "a.k.a. {secondary title}". I have no strong objection to the second title's inclusion (although as I mentioned, I don't think it has to be included); the objection is to its inclusion with equal prominence and the "messy" manner, what with the "a.k.a." abbreviation and all. If put in a note, you could even spell out the "also known as".
Alternatively, I've seen secondary titles included in the "Notes" cell, such as in The Amityville Horror (film series) § Films. Just never in the same cell as the primary title. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest that, a la Rita Hayworth#Film and television credits, as a compromise. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Well compromise is the spirit of Wikipedia, so sure, let's go with that! —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)