Talk:Josie Maran

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

Untitled[edit]

I would like to see more info on her body, and i think this kind of info should be included in most model profiles, such as weight, height, bust, etc.... - 70.49.22.253 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have a sexier picture to use, from a magazine cover or something? Golfcam 19:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the last picture? How was that not sexy?!

Josie never mentioned Jenna Jameson.[edit]

That comment about Jenna Jameson is just baseless - she talked about liking porn, and hooking up with other model/actresses on Howard Stern's show, but Jenna's name was never mentioned. There's never been a quote of Josie mentioning Jenna.

Video from the Stern show here: http://josiemaran-world.com/josie-maran.com/downloads/motion/JMhs4.wmv the rest of the show can be found here: http://josiemaran-world.com/josie-maran.com/motion.htm

Update:

checking the history of this Wiki, the rumor was indeed started here by someone misquoting the Stern show: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josie_Maran&diff=16720720&oldid=15413260 "An avowed bisexual, Josie revealed on the Howard Stern show that despite having a long-time boyfriend she also enjoys sex with women, including adult movie actress Jenna Jameson."

We can bury this rumor as untrue.Shiyan 06:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May want to fix up the Jenna Jameson article too. Will wait for comments before editing. matt kane's brain 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, the site which is cited the Jenna Jameson wiki, http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/newspeakerbio/2457/index.php , just copy and pasted from the 21 September 2005 revision of the Josie Maran wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josie_Maran&oldid=23667115, which contains the above error. Shiyan 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality[edit]

Whether or not she had a relationship or "fling" (whatever) with Jameson, she has repeatedly confirmed her bisexuality in interviews. For example, aside from Stern, she went into detail about her past relationships with women, and her ongoing activity of picking up women for threeways with, then boyfriend, David Blaine when he appeared with her on Opie & Anthony. While this aspect of her personal life doesn't have to be titillatingly detailed, it's something that should be listed in the article. She has repeatedly commented on it as fact. 141.155.230.180 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josie denies being "gay" despite her "crush" on Gwen Stefani.[edit]

transcript from Jimmy Kimmel Live, August 12 2004.

6:20 into this video: http://josiemaran-world.com/josie-maran.com/downloads/motion/MJMjk2a.zip

Jimmy Kimmel: "Any famous people you DO have a crush on?"

Josie Maran: "*sighs* oh..god..yeah... Johnny Depp and Gwen Stefani."

Jimmy Kimmel: "Really...Johnny Depp AND Gwen Stefani? well that's.."

Josie Maran: "I wanna merge them into one person, rawrrrr"

Jimmy Kimmel: "Really, well that would just be weird though. *chuckles* You really, both, and Gwen Stefani's a girl you know right?"

Josie Maran: "Yeah she's a girl and I actually don't want to meet either of them, and I'm not gay, but I umm, I don't really wanna meet them because they're so beautiful in my imagination that I think that would probably ruin it. Cause...yeah...people in real life are different."Shiyan 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josie's daughter[edit]

http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2006/10/model_josie_mar.html

In better-late-than-never news, we recently learned that model Josie Maran, 28, gave birth to her first child, daughter Rumi Joon, on June 20th in Los Angeles. Dad is Josie's longtime boyfriend, photographer Ali Alborzi.

Josie is currently appearing on the cover of Fit Pregnancy's Oct/Nov issue, and is featured in a prenatal yoga spread inside the magazine.

In the photos in the spread, Josie wears 1 in the Oven's maternity henley in navy blue ($58). This super soft 100% waffle weave cotton henley has a seven button jersey placket which transforms the look from classic crewneck to deep v neck.

Source: Fit Pregnancy

pronunciation of Maran[edit]

by Josie herself: http://josiemaran-world.com/DVDs/Need-For-Speed/josiemostwantedintro.avi Shiyan 07:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Maran is pronounced MAIR-an, rhymes with Karen, like "CARE-an"."

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded lists[edit]

As WP:EMBED says: Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed.

I don't know how it can get any clearer. Prose over lists; summarize the notable points in the article's body. And the rationale for when it's appropriate to use them don't apply here.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The example WP:EMBED gives for when embedded lists are appropriate is for very short lists comprised of "children" of previous paragraphs, and are used as organizational tools to aid elaborating on their context within the article. The lists you keep inserting do not fit this criteria; they are simple lists of links, which is exactly what Wiki policy warns against. The user Future Perfect at Sunrise, a Wiki administrator, has also edited out these lists - why? Because policy says they don't belong, regardless of what you prefer.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:EMBED#Appropriate uses Please actually read an article before you claim it doesn't contain certain content, and please don't imply administrators (or any editors for that matter) are too dumb to know what they're doing. FPaS reverted the edits for unencyclopedic style, which is exactly what embedded lists are (and which is exactly why articles for models of similar stature to Maran don't contain them). If you don't believe it, feel free to ask him.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a clean-up tag is always an option... if you're not willing to address the problem yourself, and I have no problem doing that in such instances as these, especially since they're almost always ignored, often for years until someone just comes along and deletes the content. I'm not even going to bother with your other points, as it's all too clear by this point you have no interest in Wiki policies beyond how twisting them can support your case, no matter how weakly.
Instead, I'm just going to say I asked Future Perfect about his edit, and instead of a response, he simply semi-protected the article to prevent further disruptive editing and edit warring by anonymous IPs - meaning you.  Mbinebri  talk ← 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: First Mbenebri points out that he is just deleting because of what is written in Wikipedia:EMBED.

But then he doesn't mention Wikipedia:EMBED anymore, as it is pointed out to him that it clearly says: "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]".

Anyway, it will soon be decided hopefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.136 (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just sum up here my view about the work-lists and remove the now redundant of my previous posts on that topic.

3) Beside, WP:Embed clearly says: "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles". There is no restriction given in WP:Embed to this sort of lists. 82.113.121.16 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10 days with nobody against readding the info. I'll readd it now. 82.113.106.23 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the Wikipedia:EMBED#Appropriate uses language, the lists you again removed are obviously "children" of the section "career".
And it's curious that you didn't cite the end of the "Appropriate uses" part: "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles [...]". 82.113.121.126(talk) 15:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should mention that as far as I know Mbenebri is involved in a website about model photos. So now the information isn't here on wikipedia anymore, maybe more visit that website.

Greetings 82.113.121.136 (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is an extended worklist valueable information for the reputation of the model and is it in accordance with the English wikipedia-guideline for lists?[edit]

Is an extended worklist valueable information for the reputation of the model and is it in accordance with the English wikipedia-guideline for lists?

To see the lists in question follow the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josie_Maran&diff=310196009&oldid=310098187

Further infos about this question: The info was there for years. It's sources are the first reference and the official website of J. Maran.

User Mbineri deleted those lists saying it would be against the guidelines for lists. The Guidelines however state explicitly that lists of information can be added at the end of an article. IN OVER 8 MONTHS sser Mbineri NEVER managed to write a response about this exception. ("Never" is clearly a neutral statement, as you could see in the history of the talk-page, the article-history sum-ups, his talk-page and the talk-page of the lists-guideline page some months ago.)

Of course as it is known on Wikipedia for all past and presumably all future the article was blocked against editing by IPs after the lists were removed. (Though this time they were removed for another reason by a User who never ever was involved before in this articles writing or discussion - surprisingly.)

(Noteworthy but not fully related to this RfC is that the article< was already blocked against editing by IPs through another admin (Future Prefect ...) who - granting what User Mbineri say is true - already removed the lists once because he had the same opinion about the lists. That's blocking by an admin who is involved in a content dispute himself.)

82.113.121.126 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Clarification what is meant with "valueable information for the reputation of the model": Is it valueable information for someone who reads the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.126 (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (Next time, it would help if you provided a more concise, neutral explanation of the issue when making an RfC - this took way too much back reading to figure out what was going on...). Mbinebri has properly stated the guidelines at WP:EMBED. The list was very, very large, and can properly be written as prose. There are only three exceptions:
  • Children of the preceding paragraph. The list I am making here is an example of that. The list at issue was not a "child" of the preceding paragraph about his career (which is far too distant from the list to be considered a parent, and makes no sense why a list is required). It is a just a stand-alone list that could easily be integrated into the career section, probably with additional subsections.
Good to see that. IN FACT this is the important point here. User Mbineri just wants the information to be deleted at all. And as I already pointed out and is still the *rule* on Wikipedia, badly formatted or written valid pieces of information are still better than no information at all. AND IN CONTINUATION to this (-actually I only cite J. Wales here-) instead of deleting unluckily formatted or written information, one SHOULD RATHER improve it! - But of course, as he deleted it, it's only on the webpage he is involved with anymore. 82.113.121.120 (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list may be perferable then a long sequence within a sentence. I don't think this an issue. Turning this list into prose would not result in a sentence with a long sequence. In fact, it would ultimately provide more detail and a better narrative about this individual's career.
Well, you contradict yourself here. How could a "very very large list" (your own words) be brought into a not boring sentence, when there simply isn't more information beside what's in the list. 82.113.121.120 (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles. The examples cited for this appropriate use do not apply here. This article is not a general overview of of the individual question with an attached resume. This is supposed to be an encyclopediac article about him. Therefore, such a list does not complete the article.
Of course I know you are related in some way to Mbineri, I just need to look at the time of your edit and Mbineri's edit. But anyway I answer as it's good to have that fixed in a written form that finally will find it's way to the archive where links could be set to forever.
You say "the examples" - actually there is only ONE example, and it does not restrict the content of the general exception. What you write is just your personal interpretation of the one example. It's just ridiculous what you two try here. But anyway, next time I will add it as sentence. That of course is not appropriate, but I definitly oppose people like you, Mbineri and Future Perf... who just do edits for their personal well being, be it financial, though in 99% mostly an ego-drive. 82.113.121.120 (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that you need to assume good faith when commenting on other editors' changes. Finally, this article won't be protected forever. It's just to prevent this edit war and make you come to the table for a discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really didn't read the rfc. Else you would suggest that to User Mbineri. Did you read about his hundreds of unwanted edits where he *never* ever wrote anything on the discussion pages before? 82.113.121.120 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Reply: Thank you for the input, Singularity42. That the list in question does not meet general WP:EMBED criteria (or it's three exceptions) is what I've been saying all along, although not quite so concisely as stated here. And to 82.113.121.126: Please do not refactor talk page comments, as you did to the previous section where our discussions took place, even if you're removing the comments just to paraphrase them further down. It makes a discussion harder for other users to follow.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't start making up things. You always wanted to remove the information entirly. You just could have made a sentence of it, though that would be BS as that sort of pieces of information, many single points, are just and only to add as a list or a list with 2 or 3 collums. Instead you lied, you changed discussion pages (removing the rfc tag here, which is clearly vandalism), you wrote where you were not asked to answer (and could not answer as the question was explicitly about what some specific people thought about this here), and you have deleted on hundreds of pages on wikipedia - you simply can't have the knowledge about hundreds of topics.
As I wrote on the first day you made changes on this article, you only want to push your edit count to become admin once, and to promote the website you are affiliated with. 82.113.121.120 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: For anyone willing to comment on this issue or just read it for fun, here is the version (for easier reading) before 82.113.121.120 chopped up the responses and demonstrated a dire need to read up on civility.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note: Well, the protection just expired after a week's time, and since then no new editors have offered input on the issue through the RfC, as I guessed would be the case. That leaves three editors who have removed the embedded lists and the RfC comment from Singularity42 further explaining why the lists should be avoided. Unless some new editors come along to offer well-reasoned disagreement, this is clearly the consensus and the lists should not be re-included unless the consensus changes.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

infos

Three editors? who could be those? There is only you and some "hired by ICQ" admin and noobs. That's not editors.
Furthermore some noob called mbiniere said herself the infos would have to be put in prosa instead of in tables. Maybe she should read her own babbling before failing and opposing herself.
And it's always the right time to mention that Mbiniere is associated to another website that still holds the informations he continually deletes in this article and other models' articles. Some over 100 deletions she did easily to see in her edit-summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.92 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I am "he," although that's unimportant. Second, you asked for an RfC, and the editor who responded disagreed with you. If you have a problem with this, insults and accusations of "hiring" admins is not the way to deal with it. Neither is disruptive editing, reverting against consensus, and vandalism, which I see you have just been blocked for. If you find this all upsets you, perhaps you have a conflict of interest and your services as editor would be better made in articles where your actions won't lead to more blocks or article protections.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Andy Metcalfe thing is right[edit]

I don't think the Andy Metcalfe thing is right; prove it. The citations don't mention anything about Metcalfe either. 71.139.160.208 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, 71.139.160.208, for pointing this out; the cited source doesn't appear to support the claim, nor did I find any other source for it in several searches. So I removed it per WP:BLP. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Josie Maran. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comment about scar[edit]

This doesn't seem to be relevant: "In 1990 an appendectomy left Maran with a noticeable scar that is typically edited out of photos." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knglerxst2112 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josie_Maran&oldid=1206778300"