Talk:Portia de Rossi

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

Officially out?[edit]

Im not 100% shure, but I believe that Portia officially came out as gay. It was in the May 2005 issue of Details magazine. Can somebody find the article?.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Un Chien (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SHE'S ON THE COVER OF THE (I DO BELIEVE) SEPTEMBER ISSUE OF THE ADVOCATE WHICH CONTAINS A BLATANTLY OUTTING INTERVIEW. THE CHICK IS VERY OUT... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.237.62 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
stop shouting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.217.249.225 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding: "De Rossi is openly gay." This is a NPV fact. On many occasions, Portia de Rossi has voluntarily chosen to make the fact that she is gay a defining part of her public persona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.238.4 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sign your comments. The fact the she is openly gay is addressed in the lower half of the paragraph in a more subtle/less abrupt manner and in a way that flows with the article. Plus saying "she is openly gay" doesn't even tell the whole story. Portia "came out" in a gradual manner and only came all the way out in 05'. I disagree with you entirely about her making it part of her public persona. She's only discussed it in two interviews only to get it "on record." Going to awards with Ellen and things like that is not making it part of her persona. How silly is that. However, thank you for writing a comment this time and being (slightly) less trollish. Crumbsucker 02:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your point of view. However, I must strongly disagree. Portia de Rossi has opened up about her homosexuality in her magazine interviews. She has specifically stated that she is homosexual. This is a verified and NPV fact that deserves inclusion.
You didn't read a thing I wrote. The fact that she is gay is already stated in the paragraph, if you would bother to read it. In fact, there are several references to her sexuality in the article, so you are clearly playing dumb and deliberately missing the point. There's no reason to repeat it in the awkward way you keep trying to. You've been reverted by several people and it will keep happening. Please sign your comments. Crumbsucker 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; her being homosexual is already mentioned in the article and so the issue in question is her sexuality, as her homosexuality is simply the result of the issue of her sexuality, therefore making sexuality the primary term of degree. Smeggysmeg 16:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look. The fact that she's gay has been added to Wikipedia. It's not really appropriate to go farther than that. What makes some people think that gayness is the defining aspect of a gay person's life? Is being straight the defining aspect of a straight person's life or "persona"? Of course not. It's just there, in the background, like eye or skin color. I think people who are so scandalized by someone being gay, and who focus on it above all other aspects of that person, are just showing that they don't actually understand or accept homosexuals yet. -Kasreyn 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She eats carpet, pretty big deal. So, she married Ellen ... does she get Ellens last name seeing how Ellen wears the pants in the relationship?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.35 (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo?[edit]

That's definitely not a picture of PdR -- the only picture that I can find from the Advocate looks totally different. Could someone with more knowledge of the issue commnet on whether this uncertainty is just a function of the picture's small size or it's actually not a picture of her? Jweed 21:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like here to me. There is a link on Image:Portia.jpg to a page with a larger version of the image where you can more easily identify her. Qutezuce 00:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't Portia de Rossi. Google image for Portia de Rossi and you'll find dozens of images with one thing in common: white skin. The image you've linked to is of Portia Simpson-Miller, the president-elect of Jamaica. Maybe someone accidentally overwrote one portia.jpg with another? -Kasreyn 06:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, someone overwrote the image yesterday. See my reply in the next section. Qutezuce 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the image to the correct version, the photo of Portia Simpson-Miller existed as another image. No page used the Portia Simpson-Miller picture that overwrote the Portia de Rossi image so it shouldn't cause any problems. The picture is now back on the page and it should be correct, if not try refreshing your browser. Sorry for the confusion. Qutezuce 07:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Qutezuce[edit]

Please stop adding the photo of Portia Simpson-Miller to this page. I'm hoping it was an accident. If not, please stop vandalizing this page. -Kasreyn 06:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My browser was caching the old image, someone uploaded another image overtop the real image of Portia de Rossi and my browser kept the image and the Image's page both cached so it was always a picture of Portia de Rossi from my viewpoint. Since no one provided an edit summary when removing the image I assumed that I was fixing vandalism by restoring the image. Qutezuce 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! -Kasreyn 07:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did she changer her name to an Italian/Latin name?[edit]

Anyone know why she picked Portia (a Latin name) and de Rossi a (Latinate/Italian) name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurianLegend (talk • contribs) 3 August 2006


DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE? IT TELLS YOU WHY SHE CHOSE PORTIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.190.2 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She took the name from a character in "The Merchant Of Venice and De Rossi".

Married[edit]

Is she, in fact, LEGALLY and FACTUALLY married? If so, in what jurisdiction. Not anti-gay, just pro-facts. 129.110.199.179 10:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, since she's planning a June, 2007, "wedding", the answer in May, 2007, can only be "NO". [1] Wahkeenah 10:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was married to a man to get a green card, but I assume she got a divorce. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What high school did she go to?[edit]

I live in Geelong and I was wondering what high school did she go to? --Candy-Panda 13:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Advocate" :
    • The Advocate, "Portia heart and soul", http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w_ektid20037.asp
    • <http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w_ektid20037.asp

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

most beautiful openly gay lesbian[edit]

Is this not opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.18.232 (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly can one be a straight lesbian? Sue De Nimes (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thehumandignity (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Openly straight?[edit]

The portion on her personal life is clearly POV. Why state she is "openly lesbian" when Wikipedia articles do not list people as "openly straight"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.180.183 (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt say "openly straight" for the same reason it doesn't say "openly human", most people are straight, so it is only necessary to note when that is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.128.208 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very "pro-gay" but I think that makes sense conceptually - it would overly enlarge articles if the default case (note, avoiding the use of the word "norm") was explicated each time. Better to describe the divergence cases. Though "openly" does sound a bit non-npov. Why not just lesbian? There is an implication through "open" that gayness is something to keep closeted about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.171.27 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason to mention it explicitly is that it has been a topic of coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise, there would be no reason to mention it. Imagine that, an article that lists someone's relationships, where they happen to be or have been with members of the same sex, and letting the fact speak for itself without remarking on it—without giving advance warning, as it were, that "she's a lesbian!". —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that it's absurd to write "openly". If a person isn't openly gay, then it's unlikely to be a good idea to write "(s)he's gay" at all. And what does "openly" really mean? Does it require that the person have made a public statement to the effect, "I am gay!" Does it mean the person has never spoken publicly about his or her sexual orientation at all but dates members of the same sex without hiding it but also without feeling the need to announce, "Yes, this is a homosexual relationship that I'm having!"? I think that if an article says "(s)he's gay", and that if sufficient justification exists for mentioning that or even implying it, the "openly" part can be left unspoken. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horsham or Geelong ?[edit]

The article says she was born in Horsham but the factsheet underneath the photo says Geelong. Which is it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.104.88 (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking DeGeneres' Last Name[edit]

I just edited the article to reflect the fact that she has officially filed a petition to take her spouse's last name.., however I'm not really sure how this works? The documents shows that the petition was filed on Aug 6th, does this mean that the main name of the article should now be changed to reflect the new name or do we have to wait until the formalities are over with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.jamali (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was filed on Aug 6th, but it still has to go before the court. She's scheduled for Sept 23. (Interestingly, she apparently signed the document in March. Why did she wait until now to file it? Does it have to do with the Prop 8 reversal last week?) 96.45.196.227 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we should wait to see if she uses her new name professionally or not. If she continues to use her previous name professionally, we should stick with that name too, as it's likely to be the name she's most commonly known as. 96.45.196.227 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is not yet widely known by her new name, therefore the article title should have remained as it was - WP:COMMONNAME. Can someone please correct this? 02:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Pillows (talk • contribs)
The fact that she has legally changed her name signals that she intends to be known by this name personally and professionally. Thus, it is the more correct article title.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correctness has nothing to do with it, according to WP:COMMONNAME. It's about what most readers expect her name to be, and I, for one, completely agree with this policy! Mr Pillows (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes an admin needs to change this back, per WP:COMMONNAME and per this statement "I am thrilled to legally adopt my wife's name. I will continue to use Portia de Rossi for professional purpose" - Epson291 (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - that quote appears pretty dispositive of the issue - so I have reversed the page move. Good work finding that.--Kubigula (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be written as "DeGeneres this" "DeGeneres that" if she is known as "de Rossi"??? The Snoop Dog article does not refer to him throughout as Broadus. Giving her legal name at the top seems important, but shouldn't the main text of the article be written using her professional name, especially as it is what she wants to be known as professionally? I just read WP:Common Names for the first time today, but that is what it suggested to me....140.163.0.5 (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to revert the move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Kubigula (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Portia DeGeneres → Portia de Rossi — According to the source Epson291 linked above ([2]), "I will continue to use Portia de Rossi for professional purposes." That means the name will remain the name by which she is best known, and under which the works that confer notability upon her will be credited. Powers T 15:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lupus?[edit]

An IP changed the text to read that the lupus was misdiagnosed. All sources I saw doing a google news search had something similar to the somewhat vague wording of "was told that she had lupus." For now I reworded the sentence to something vaguer, following the sources, but there's still the matter of the category. Is there anyone with access to her book who could check if there's anything on whether or not the lupus was in fact misdiagnosed? Siawase (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anexoria[edit]

Portia spoke of the disease on the Ellen DeGeneres show. She was anorexic and bulimic to where she was 82 pounds. If somebody could write more about this, she discusses her experiences in her new book Unbearable Lightness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settingprecedent (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her anorexia and the book is already mentioned in the personal life section. If you want to expand the coverage, be bold and edit the article (but be mindful about sourcing any additions) or suggest more specific additions here. Siawase (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checking her professional last name[edit]

The earlier discussion regarding what last name Portia now uses professionally still stands, but I just noticed in the Zap2It article from July that I posted regarding the music video appearance that she's identified as Portia DeGeneres. I personally think Zap2It is in error here, but since it's a reputable (LA Times-run website) source that's more recent than the 2010 sources previously cited, it may do no harm to double check that she hasn't indeed chosen to use DeGeneres as her professional name, as people do change their minds about such things. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

She bacame a US citizen in 2011, but the infobox says Australian. Is "being a citizen" and "nationality" different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.92.167 (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born in Australia or Puerto Rico?[edit]

Resolved

The main text of the article states Australia while the infobox states Puerto Rico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.146.215 (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has the distinct advantage of being sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Married ah no[edit]

So married doesnt mean legally married any more, so its just a throw away term. They got married when it was not legally possible. Im off to up date trumps page as I just married him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon19801 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: As the article and sources clearly state, de Rossi and DeGeneres are married. Also, as Trump is already married and no state currently allows for polygamous marriages, he'll have some more questions to answer if you have any sources for your claim. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Portia de Rossi. 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) 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portia de Rossi. 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) 08:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Metcalf[edit]

The incorrect Mel Metcalf is linked in the quick notes. She was married to the documentary filmmaker, not the academy award nominated sound engineer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:161E:A269:8D74:5A3:3F9E:D433 (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portia_de_Rossi&oldid=1206904181"