Jump to content

Talk:Rashida Jones/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Note of her father

Wouldn't it be worth a mention in the article that her father is the famous music producer Quincy Jones?--98.194.219.250 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in "Early life". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Her mother is Jewish

Why is this significant and why is it mentioned? Was she known for being an unusually devout activist of her faith? What is Rashida's father's religion, because unlike her mother it's not awkwardly spelled out for us? Are we to just automatically assume he's not Jewish because it doesn't say? Seriously, look at her very famous father's page, or nearly any other famous person's wikipedia article, and it doesn't mention them being Christian or whatever their religion is. Her mother's page says she came from Russian Jews. Isn't it safe to assume that if she came from Russian Christians, it would simply say "Russian" and leave out the religious affiliation? I'm having a hard time understanding when and why being Jewish is notable trait for wiki articles, and especially curious when and why one of a person's parents being Jewish is noteworthy.Lifterus (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Jewishness is an ethnicity (see Jewish ethnic divisions), not just a religion, and Rashida Jones' page discusses her ethnic background at length. Since you didn't object to the mentions of her African-American, Russian, and Irish backgrounds, I don't see the difference with this particular one. Plus, since Jones is a practicing Jew (as the article later states), it's probably useful to point out where her Jewish ancestry comes from. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

improve this page by 2 things

Hi ... I think that this page could be much improved with two things.
1--footnotes/citations. there are none. and this reads a bit as a sales piece, so with some footnotes we could improve it.
2--can someone put up a picture of her? tx.--Epeefleche 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Article contradiction

At the top, the article states that "Rashida" is Arabic for "wise". Near the bottom, it states that "Rashida" is Arabic for "righteous". If it can mean both, I think it should be clarified in one spot and then the reference removed in the other. 134.84.103.24 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

open letter to tupac

does anyone know where to find the open letter she wrote to tupac?

It was published in the Letters To The Editor section of Vibe Magazine. I believe this would have been in the early 1990's.
i assume there is no online version posted on the net anywhere?
I only place where I could locate the letter was on the DVD: Tupac Shakur - Thug Angel (The Life of an Outlaw). So I transcribed it and added it to the article. -Damanplusi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damanplusi (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

she is currently dating seth meyers

someone should add that she's currently in a relationship with Seth Meyers. I'm surprised it's not on here, yet it is on his page..?? hmm...well, someone do it.192.234.16.2 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

i think they broke up a while ago
Yeah they did, she's dating her The Office co-star John Krasinski.BaracudaAgent 10:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
she is not dating John Kransinski anymore either.
This isn't the tabloids, people. Sposato (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, she said in an interview (I don't have a link in front of me) that she didn't date Meyers and said the rumors started when a picture was taken of the two of them together. She also stated she had gone on Wikipedia to edit that out, but it kept getting reverted :-) Fustigate314159 (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If I read correctly in the Bust Magazine recently she had received an email about "would she like to go on a blind date" and in Lab Magazine Jack Black states she should have a baby and she states: "You have to have someone to have a child with" I think she is no longer dating Obama speech boy either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.57.39.66 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Her mother liked dating men outside her race but Rashida sticks to white/jewish boys; even her sister "Kidada" got upset that she didn't like black men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.57.39.66 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change to her personal staus (75.23.32.220 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

Category question

Should she be in Category:Converts to Hinduism?--T. Anthony 06:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC) No, she is a practicing Jew. According to American Jewish Life Magazine http://www.ajlmagazine.com/content/012007/rashidajones.html Adipatus 06:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Adipatus

Two Appearances on Chappelle Show

Rashida Jones played a character on an episode of Chappelle's Show, in which she was asked by Dave Chappelle to sign the "Love Contract," and later, the "Confidentiality Agreement."

As I recall she played at least two characters. The other was in a fake commercial for what I think was a feminine hygiene product.
--->[edit]There are two listings for Chappelle's Show under "TV guest appearances" but not from "Career" (what I quoted above).65.73.75.121 09:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

african american?

Jones' father is of Cherokee, West African and Welsh ancestry, and her mother is Jewish. How this puts her in African american category? Luka Jačov 21:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The first half of your comment pretty much answers the second half. But it is a somewhat dubious aspect of U.S. culture that a person's African ancestry is generally given more importance than the rest of his/her background. Jewishness, too, to a somewhat lesser degree. Cranston Lamont 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Jewish is a religion not a nationality or ethnicity. Her momma Peggy is an American born to a Russian father and Irish mother. Both of her parents practised Judaism. Peggy Lipton's mom is descended from Eastern European immigrants. 70.108.126.66 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yikes, you might be overlinking yourself. :) Anyway, the term "Jewish" does not only apply to religious beliefs - check the article that you yourself linked to. --DearPrudence (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh snap!Utils (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
luka jacov, she's probably considered mostly black because her skin is closer to her african and cherokee roots than her west european ancestors. plus, her father, quite well known, is african american as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.171.114 (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


Rashida herself has said she is black. If you read her mother's book their is a chaper entitled " First black jew president" or something like that. She can't help that her full/blooded sister Kidada looks more black that she does. Denying her black heritage is denying her sister, father, and her other half-siblings. Stop trying to say "western Africa" heck you came from Africa you are black unless you white from South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.57.39.66 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on now, you are generalizing a whole group of people in Africa. You are forgetting major ethnic groups in North Africa (Egypy, Morocco, etc). You're probably one of those people that think all Asian people look alike. You need to get with the times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.241.139 (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rashida Jones pic

Y isnt that pic that Jim added ok? I added caption "Rashida Jones as Karen on Office".
It shows Rashida!
! ...70.108.126.66 (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationale only covers its use for the Karen Filippelli article, i.e. to depict a fictional character. It would be far better to use an image that is not copyrighted. María (habla conmigo) 13:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Until some 1 adds something is is better 2 have that than nada @ all.
...70.108.126.66 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That is not what the Image use policy states. Please stop adding it to the article and reverting to an inferior edit. The format follows MOS and references are correctly cited now. Also, the Mark Ronson information needs a reliable source; a fansite does not count. María (habla conmigo) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone just put a Creative Commons photo of Rashida Jones up from Flickr. It needs review. It's fine if you ask me. I was gonna look for one myself. Sposato (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism

Some of the biographical information (e.g., letter to Tupac) has been copied directly from the referenced external article and should be paraphrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.30.192 (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

writer?

She's not a writer, whoever added that bit to her bio. She wrote a couple of pages in her entire life. Excuse me, Rashida. Gregorik (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

She is a writer. She has written Frenemy of the State and has written screenplays.

Personal life

I think her rumored boyfriend is worth mentioning. The story got a lot of coverage -her page views spiked at 26 000+ the day it broke- and it is already included in his Wiki entry. The Politico, which cites the rumor, is also a very credible source. Mt rowingman (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I think she is over "Obama boy" He looks so shady like all D.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.57.39.66 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification probably needed

The part where it says she's dating Jon Faverau should probably also make it clear that we're not saying that the Swingers star writes speeches for Barack Obama. As hilarious a misunderstanding as that is, that may communicate the wrong thing. Joel Davis --72.154.63.228 (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


I hope she isn't dating Jon Faverau he looks shady and not trustworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.57.39.66 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

I tried to add her role on The Cleveland Show to her filmography, but i messed up big time. Could somebody fix it for me please? 69.122.14.183 (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Matt Almont

Done. - dcljr (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Trailblazer Award removed from Filmography section

I removed the entry about this award from the Filmography section where it was listed with the Celeste and Jesse Forever movie. The award is the Whistler Film Festival Trailblazer Award that she is due to receive at the end of the month during the festival. While she will give a talk about that movie and attend a screening, the award is not being given for that movie. It is for her overall achievements. It should be stated in the Awards section. I think it should wait to be included in the article until it is actually awarded. Something could happen and then it may be there a long time before it gets noticed and cleaned out. I don't feel strongly about this, if someone wants to add it back at the correct place. Here are two web site articles that mention the upcoming award. http://www.kelownacapnews.com/entertainment/179717181.html http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Daniel+Radcliffe+Rashida+Jones+appear+Whistler+Film+Festival/7562847/story.html I am sure more will be available after it happens and will make better references to cite. Probing Mind (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal life info

To address the recent content removals, rather than simply revert again: People is not a gossip mag, per RS noticeboard discussions here and here. The first linked discussion also makes the point that you have to take into account the source's area of expertise, and info on celeb culture is exactly what People is for. Also, the point that personal relationships don't apply to notability is irrelevant, as the notability guidelines address article topics, not content. Not to mention, the alleged gossip/non-RS argument is being selectively applied, as other personal life info sourced to People was not removed.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here before rv-ing. Both editor Hullaballoo and I suggest that information about Jones' social life - apart from formal significant life events like engagement, marriage, children - is tabloid gossip and not encyclopedia information. I appreciate your links to discussion board posts above, but neither is a definitive decision - rather, individual editors are expressing their POV on People while others are disagreeing with it as RS. I would be happy to see every reference to it removed from this article and replaced with CN tags.
The larger point is the material itself. I alluded to the BLP section on avoiding gossip in my edit summary. The operative sentences in that section are "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Note that the term is disinterested, not uninterested. Your edit summary in re-introducing the material read "Clearly not gossip; well-sourced and limited to relationships w/ notable people." Beyond the POV of what constitutes "notable people," the relevance to an encyclopedia article has not been established. I described People and Entertainment Weekly as "tabloid-esque" because their entire raison d'etre is to purvey gossip, not journalism. Jones' social life is gossip and fit for such publications. Why a "disinterested article" would include that information is unclear, as is how you establish "notable" people. Sensei48 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to say your response sort furthers an issue I have. I feel like the words "gossip" and "tabloid" are thrown around simply because using pejoratives (and steamrolling through articles, as HW does) will dissuade people from objecting. I have over 15,000 edits and even I was reluctant to get involved. But moving on... Something isn't gossip when it's presented as fact - WP:GOSSIP alludes to this. Gossip is akin to rumor - it's unverifiable. Plus, are you really accusing Politico and The LA Times of being "tabloids"? You also seem to be misrepresenting the noticeboard conversations. In each, an editor questioned the reliability of People and the responding editors argued in favor of the mag. There wasn't much of an argument against using it from them. I mean, we're not talking about The National Inquirer here. What's left is the argument of relevance, which is subjective. You claim you're okay with info on marriages and children, but why would a truly disinterested reader be interested in any of that? If someone wants nothing more than bare-bones career info, they'd probably just go to IMDb. People come to Wikipedia for full biographies, personal life info included. In our celeb-obsessed culture, long-term relationships with notable people arguably have encyclopedic value in articles with no space restrictions. After all, the media covers such relationships relentlessly. Hell, we have entire articles dedicated to celeb relationships - and frequently citing People. (To clarify: blue link = notable.)
Now I'm not going to argue till I'm blue in the face over this. If a consensus is that such info doesn't belong, I'll gladly abide by it, but if information is adequately sourced, neutral, and not given undue weight (thus meeting several core policies) I feel good faith warrants a discussion before removal, especially when the reason for removal is highly debatable.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sensei48 presents things very well, and I have little to add to their statement. This general argument has been run over and over, and I think consensus has been established to pare such content. This discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page [1] (and discussions cited there) are useful in indicating that consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I went through the discussion you linked to (and the two linked in it) and I have to say I'm surprised you could construe any of that as even close to a consensus for your point of view here. As Morbidthoughts pointed out after you inappropriately removed content at Biel's article before there was a consensus, the people who used your general arguments were long on comments about irrelevance and gossip and short on policy - and even then it was apparently regarding a list of people's she's dated, which no one really wants. Many editors seem to favor including a subject's long-term relationships as long as they can be sourced beyond typical pop culture mags and the info is kept relatively brief, which is certainly reasonable and seems in-line with what I see in most biographies.
I also see now that other editors have tried restoring the personal life content in this article. It looks less and less like there's any sort of consensus to keep it out.  Mbinebri  talk ← 05:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, other editors not Hullabaloo or I have also reverted. Like you, M, I'm not overly invested in this, though I think at this point the verdict is a split one. Gossip doesn't necessarily have to be rumor; most dictionaries describe it as something akin to "rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature", and the Wiki article itself calls it "idle talk or rumor about the personal or private affairs of others." Unless there is a correlation between the personal relationships of an article's subject and some aspect of what makes them notable enough for an encyclopedia article (a dating relationship leading to a career advancement, for example), I just don't see it as anything except gossip, salacious at worst and voyeuristic at best. It's the kind of thing IMHO that ruins thousands upon thousands of articles in Wikipedia and that disallows Wiki as a RS in almost every serious academic setting.
Further - you mention above that in the discussions cited by H., "Many editors seem to favor including a subject's long-term relationships as long as they can be sourced beyond typical pop culture mags" - but the citations here are to exactly that kind of mag. Why don't we let it ride as is for a few days and see if anyone else has strong feelings about it? If there is a genuine consensus for inclusion, I would accept that (while at the same time shaking my head in near-despair at yet another Wiki failure to attain true encyclopedia status). regards, Sensei48 (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
To add to the discussion and explain my edits, I included the two sentences because firstly, they’re facts. Not rumored relationships, based on speculation, but real ones she discusses in interviews and that appear in biographies and articles in reputable newspapers and magazines. (I found two more recent sources for good measure). Secondly, as facts they fit the objective criteria stated above: are sources reliable? Yes. Is material presented as true? Yes. As Mbinebri said, what's relevant and encyclopedia content are subjective. I would say an encyclopedia is a source of factual information. Wikipedia's sister dictionary says it's "A comprehensive reference work (...) with in-depth articles (...) on a range of subjects, sometimes general, sometimes limited to a particular field." I think relationships are relevant to an in-depth article like this, especially given the amount of other information here: early life, family, ancestors, education, skills and hobbies, racial identity, political views, causes she supports, religious beliefs - including a quote on how they affect her romantic relationships. If one of those relationships is being allowed here, I figure why not two others?
Generally speaking, the suggestion that only "formal significant" relationships (i.e. "engagement, marriage") be recognized is debatable, maybe even discriminatory. What about gay relationships that can't be formalized, or long-term couples that don't marry, or affairs? To me Wikipedia is a place to get information so being true and reliably sourced merits inclusion. A qualifier like "formal" seems irrelevant, what matters is being fact or fiction. Wikipedia also aims to be neutral so I don't agree with having individual editors deciding that only certain types of relationships are important. Mcgavins (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Nicely said, Mcgavins. To Sensei: I disagree with trying to tie inclusion of personal relationships to a subject's notability like this. It's an impossible standard to meet because Wikipedia policy rejects the notion that relationships (family or dating) can be used as a basis for notability. Also, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia will never be seen as academia-quality because anyone can edit it, and therefore any info is suspect, not that these articles contain info on verifiable relationships, which is simply the result of us trying to achieve a comprehensive biography.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

She's not the younger daughter of Quincy Jones, as Kenya Kinski is the younger

Kenya Kinski was born in 1993, she's the daughter of Quincy Jones and Nastassja Kinski, while Rashida xas born in 1976. So Rashida isn't the younger daughter of Quincy Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.71.154.101 (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Overcategorization

There is a category glut on this BLP. According to the categories, Jones has ethnic descent from quite a few European countries on her mother's side even though her bio says Russian-Jewish. Categories are not meant to be comprehensive but to just represent defining aspects of the individual's life and career. They don't need to represent every great-great-great-grandparent. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Method actor?

I'd like to know if she is a method actor? - as has been suggested by Dr. G. Jack Brown If so it would be worth adding to the article.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rashida Jones/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Twice on the page her name's arabic meaning is indicated. In one case it's "righteous" and another it's "wise." Seems suspect.


Hi ... I think that this page could be much improved with two things.
1--footnotes/citations. there are none. and this reads a bit as a sales piece, so with some footnotes we could improve it.

2--can someone put up a picture of her?tx.--Epeefleche 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rashida Jones. 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) 17:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rashida Jones. 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) 16:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rashida_Jones/Archive_1&oldid=1080947342"