Jump to content

Talk:Gisele Bündchen/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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 take this to WP:3. The Kingfisher (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 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) 19:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Eye color

Her eyes are not blue or green. They are Gray that's why they appear to "change" color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:3110:7A5:3204:CCB1 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The cited sources say different from your personal observation. And I envy anyone who was able to get so close to her as to see her eye color. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

The consensus is against including the paragraph per WP:UNDUE. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Personal life" section include this paragraph:

In a CBS interview in May 2017, Charlie Rose asked Bündchen if she wanted Brady to retire, despite that he's playing at a high level. Bündchen mentioned that Brady suffered from a concussion in the 2016 season, saying, "I mean he has concussions pretty much every—I mean we don't talk about—but he does have concussions. I don't really think it's a healthy thing for anybody to go through”.

--Tenebrae (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is non-notable for a wife to be concerned about a husband's health. Additionally the last sentence regarding her views on concussions for "anybody" else is is irrelevant and inappropriate: She is a model and and a medical authority.--Tenebrae (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I asked Tenebrae here "on what basis these strongly sourced edits that are obviously WP:NOTE are in fact WP:INDISCRIMINATE". She never responded. Now, again, she simply writes: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WP:INDISCRIMINATE has four areas: 1) Summary-only descriptions of works. 2) Lyrics databases. 3) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. 4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. I'm struggling to understand how writing about her mention in a televised interview that leads to an NFL investigation about her husband's health, violates this policy.
Tenebrae's claims that Bündchen isn't an expert about concussions, simply has no basis with regard to Wiki policy and reliable sources. It isn't irrelevant. What is relevant are the very strong reliable sources that back the edit at the top.
Also, it is inexcusable that Tenebrae left off the edit's citations. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The cites have nothing to do with it — no one claimed the paragraph wasn't cited. The only question is about the content itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
And for the record, the question had already been asked and answered, here .--Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Finally, the paragraph in question does not say a word about her comments leading to an NFL investigation. In fact, none of the first four outlets Kingfisher cites — CBS, CNN, ESPN, Washington Post — even uses the word "investigation", and one headline even says that NFL records don't show Brady had even had or complained of a concussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The edit is strong (for all the arguments) without the NFL investigation, which would have been added had not kept reverting.
Are you now stating that it is an acceptable edit if the NFL investigation is added?
  • You did not answer the question about INDISCRIMINATE with regard to how her being an expert on concussions or a wife's concern fits into one of these four areas: 1) Summary-only descriptions of works. 2) Lyrics databases. 3) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. 4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. Into which one of these areas four areas are you suggesting? The Kingfisher (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I gather you haven't been on Wikipedia for very long, so please accept as genuine my saying that there is no need for shouting, which is what your frequent boldfacing is. If Bundchen's comments directly led to a league-wide investigation of concussion by the NGL, of course that's noteworthy. But nothing I've seen in any of the sources so far states that.
And, again, I not only answered your question, but I copy-pasted the exact quote from the policy/guideline.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's fun watching you guys trying to keep this information off her article. Sports Illustrated wrote "Bündchen’s bombshell..." but yeah, it's "out of place on her page" and "soapbox drama". The Kingfisher (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No - looks more like recent-event chasing and soapbox drama, UNDUE and OFFTOPIC as this is not something that was big in her life or on topic. WP:UNDUE as just that specific interview hasn't had a big influence on her life, and the specific words are not vital enough to quote. Also seems WP:OFFTOPIC or WP:SOAPBOX as this article is to be on her life, but the paragraph is not covering an event or impact that's in her life - it seems just a random criticism at football. Markbassett (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No - This isn't relevant to her and would be out of place on her page. It would be better to include it on her husband's page than hers. Dbrote (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Here and in a subsequent edit yesterday, The Kingfisher is blatantly edit-warring despite WP:SNOWBALL to disallow his WP:INDISCRIMINATE edit. There is no consensus for it, and unlike the second edit's disingenuous edit-summary, the issue is about the indiscriminate content, not placement in the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I've now become the third editor to revert The Kingfisher's blatantly non-consensus edit here. He is clearly becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I need to remind The Kingfisher that while this content is the subject of an RfC that he must wait until the RfC is concluded before adding the same or similar edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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) 04:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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) 02:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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) 00:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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) 02:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronouncation of the middle name

I propose to add the non-trivial pronouncation of the middle name: "(/ɡiːˈzɛliː ˈkæroʊlaɪn ˈbʌndhən/; Portuguese pronunciation: [ʒiˈzɛli kaɾoˈlini ˈbĩtʃẽj], German pronunciation: [ɡiˈzɛlə kaʁoˈliːnə ˈbʏntçn̩]", although Maczkopeti objects to that, making reference to WP:COMMONNAME. Any comments are welcome. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing this article

I have been asked by several people to edit this article. There are people who believe this article could be great and singled out for quality recognition. I disagree because I believe the article is a mess. I have respectfully declined the requests made to me to edit it and have chosen to edit only bits and pieces here and there. Today, I have relented and agreed to edit this article from top to bottom to bring it into proper Wikipedia style. I ask those who are not intimately acquainted with proper Wikipedia style and encyclopedia style to not interfere. Of course, I have no right to ask that, but I’m asking anyway. If I put the work into this article that is going to be required, I don’t want my work to be reverted by those who don’t know what they’re doing. I am not perfect and don’t mind my mistakes being corrected. Just be sure you have a good reason for correcting my mistakes other than it simply sounds right to you. Writing is not subjective. There are rules that must be followed. Thank you and God bless. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is considered a level-5 vital article, therefore it is considered to be of utmost importance in the entertainers category and is expected to one day become a Good or Featured article if people continuous improve it. For some reason there is a belief on Wikipedia that if a person is famous, high-profile, etc. that their articles should eventually be of Good or Featured article status. I don’t necessarily agree with that adage but assume it’s because that is what attracts millions people to read Wikipedia. Then again, this particular article is over 15 years old and most of the people who edit it are amateurs (if you could even call them that), hence its constant need for upkeep. At any rate, all help—even if it’s just moving commas around—is appreciated. Trillfendi (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Citations needed and update

I posted a talk paragraph here a few weeks ago saying I was going to edit this article and then I received a cancer diagnosis and my editing stopped. I am picking it up again, as I mentioned once before, because I have been asked by several other editors to come and take a look at this article and do what I can with it. Inexplicably, there are those who think this article should be put up for some type of award. This article is in no shape at this point to be awarded for anything. I am adding several citation-needed banners to give those editors who are enthusiasts of this article some idea of where the holes are in the reporting. It is easy to correct grammar, style and sentence structure because I have been doing it for so long that I edit people when I’m having verbal conversations with them. However, adding proper references is more difficult and it is infinitely more important. So while I am making this article adhere to proper style, I encourage those editors who are enthusiastic about this article to come behind me and fill in the gaps for citations. Perhaps together we can bring this article into being a beacon to hold high for other articles to follow. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

I am continuing in my never-ending efforts to make this Wikipedia article one that deserves the accolades others want to bestow upon it. I think the article is a nightmare. I can edit for proper style and grammar, but these citations are unfortunate. Many of the sources are dead ends. I am adding citations, but since many are online media I fear that they, too, will quickly become unretrievable. Let's not hold up articles as quality reference material when they are lacking as significantly as this one. I am writing this section to again call upon trained and experienced Wikipedia editors to find sources for these statements of facts that are solid. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Almost finished with initial edits!

I am down to the Personal section. My plan is to attack that section tomorrow and complete the article's first pass. After that is done, I will go back through the article to fix any mistakes or recent edits that require fixing and check all the citations. Quite a task, but happy to contribute. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Done for now

I have edited through the charitable activities section. I will start on the environmental causes on Wednesday. This article is not as simple to edit as other articles because almost all the citations on which this article has been built have been dead ends. It takes more than an hour in some cases to edit one sentence, as I search the Internet for sources that will support the information given. I am taking the time to research these sources because I want to honor the work other editors have done. However, statements of fact – which is the only thing that should be in a Wikipedia article – must be cited to a legitimate source. I know all sources can't be The Wall Street Journal, but we have to find good sources for this content.

UPDATE: I had no idea this article was being actively edited behind me as I am moving through the article. Now I see I have to go back to sections I have already edited and fix problems that have been added. I have no right to ask anyone to stop editing an article because it is everyone's right to do so. However, I am putting so much work into this article, not because I want to but because I have been asked to do so to get it in shape for recognition as a quality article. May I respectfully ask those who are enthusiastic about this subject to please allow me to finish the work here before we go back through and start making changes. I am working as quickly as I can. Also, please know I have no connection to this article except for my love of the English language and the lifetime I have devoted to editing as a profession. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it really that deep? Trillfendi (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. If you are referring to your right to edit this article at any time, that is not to be debated by me. You have every right to edit this or any other Wikipedia article at any time. I was only asking for a moment to get this article in shape. You are not bound by my request. If that is not what you meant, then I'm at a loss. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Eh, I guess my comment was ambiguous. Of course as this article is very old it needs all the help it can get as a Level 5 Vital Article. And I do believe a lot of info can stand to be removed especially if no suitable alternatives are found for it. Trillfendi (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Finished first run through

I have completed edits throughout the article. I will go back through now to recheck style and sentence structure, citations and edits that have been made behind me. I welcome any editor's help on confirming references. When more credible references can be found for statements, let's make those changes. We're almost there! God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gisele Bündchen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The9Man (talk · contribs) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Notes

Here are few concerns so far.

  • Personal life - In this section, the relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio is not closed properly.
  • Links to 1 disambiguation page Sapucaia.
  • giselebundchen.com leads to 403.


I am currently going through the inline citations. It may take a couple of days to complete. Thank you for your understanding.

- The9Man (Talk) 08:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing! Are you saying there is a ref issue in the Personal Life section for the relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio? ⌚️ (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Not concerned about the ref. From a reader's point of view, the section looks incomplete. It jumps from the first relationship to second without closing the former. I feel it should be mentioned why/when they got separated for complete information. Here is an example of what I mean - Naomi Campbell#Personal life
I am open to discussion.
- The9Man (Talk) 19:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah ok, I get that. I will add the reason they separated. It took her 14 years but she did say the reason they split was along the spiritual route. ⌚️ (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Good work. Much appreciated. - The9Man (Talk) 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations Trillfendi, the article has passed. - The9Man (Talk) 05:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Gisele's full name "Gisele Caroline Nonnenmacher Bündchen"?

I know in Brazil many have two surnames, the maternal surname and then the paternal surname. So I'm wondering if Gisele's full name is "Gisele Caroline Nonnenmacher Bündchen". I have found several sources that describe her full name as being this. Two English-language sources: [1][2] and one French source states this: [3]. I had to use Google translate, so the translation might be wrong, but these sources in Portuguese say her baptismal name was "Gisele Caroline Bündchen" [4][5] The 5th article, a Brazilian daily newspaper called "Folha" has a whole story claiming that one of Gisele's sisters tried to fix her sister Wikipedia page as her christening name was "Gisele Caroline Bündchen", without "Nonnenmacher". So I'm wondering if this could be discussed? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Citations

After more than a year since I made massive edits in this article to bring it to a standard by which other Wikipedia articles could be compared, I came back to check on the article and am happy with the responsible contributions from other editors. However, as I read back over the article, I am finding that the mid-sentence citations make the article cumbersome to read. Although mid-sentence citations are allowed in Wikipedia, I believe that, particularly in a long article such as this one, they cause the reader to stumble and take longer to absorb the information. I am going to move the mid-sentence citations to the end of the sentences. Of course, I am making no changes to the citations, only moving them to the end of the sentence. I believe that will allow readers greater ease and understanding when reading the article, which is the point of all grammatical and style rules. I thought it wise to bring this to the attention of editors through the article's Talk page so there would not be any misunderstanding as to why I am moving the citations. I trust no one will be offended by my edits. Thank you all for your hard work on this article and in Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Her name

How do you pronounce her name 50.80.253.206 (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two pronunciations next to her name that use the International Phonetic Alphabet in English and Brazilian Portuguese. Trillfendi (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gisele_Bündchen/Archive_2&oldid=1241394330"