Talk:Miriam Rivera

Nice discussions ... but ...

I cannot quote my source to prove what I say but I give you this: I am in contact with Miriam and it amuses me how this whole discussion goes ...

1. When Miriam doesn't want her details go public the shouldn't. Would you like to have your intimacy published just because you have been famous? 2. I don't know who made "D'Abo" public. As stated on this page before Maryam d'Abo is an actress having nothing to do with Miriam whatsoever. 3. Miriam will have a new website. As her old domain names are taken by somebody else they will be registered having the same name but going with a different country top level domain. 4. Miriam never cheated on the boys in TISAM, it is the concept of the show playing with emotions. So in my opinion she is as a victim as the boys. In a world where these hot selling shows do exist (and still watched by millions) there are also people competing in it, may it for money, fame or love. Which isn't right or wrong but simply a choice you make. And sometimes something good intended (career) turns out to be wrong (public execution). I am not defending the show's concept or the problem of someone doing Miriam's part in the first place but neither Miriam nor the boys were in the show to hurt each other for real. That can be clearly seen if you are into psychology. It is the concept that played with emotions. And to sum it up: It may be wrong to take part in a show that gives people a missleading idea. But it is also at least doubtable that people sign up for a show to compete against each other in order to get a girl. Or to watch such stuff. Etc. I mean, look at it from the following angle: Some of the boys thought of her as a could-she-be-a-man but didn't have the ass to ask. If asked and lied to that would be a real kind of moral crime. But instead of asking her / the producers they went ALL along and couldn't wait to impress her with what testosterone had on offer. Or as the Bloodhound Gang put it out so perfectly right: "You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel" 5. Miriam had a rough time, she endured more in her short life time than many people in their whole life. I know that Miriam has many decent and loyal fans around the world who love her as a fellow human the way she is. I think that Miriam needs time. There will be the day when she comes back inviting her fans on her second band wagon. But until then people should understand that privacy is the most important peace she now can have. Be patient, don't look for her, allow Miriam to adjust in her own time and everything will turn out fine. I am sure she KNOWS that you, her fans, are out there and she likes you a lot ...

All the best, Joachim ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.44.177 (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well assuming what you say is true... You do understand that here on WP all we can do with a biography of a living person is piece together the most authoritative sources we can. When sources of almost equal authority conflict there is little that can be done. The best we can do is to discuss these matters. Then come up with the best version of the facts we can. If the living person has an issue then they themselves must log in here, show us proof they are who they say they are, then we will do whatever they want.

i.e. A while back Calpernia Addams wanted her article deleted. A vote for deletion failed by a landslide. So the best I can do for her his monitor her article and keep out as much personal info as possible. If asked, by Miriam, I would do the same here if a vote for deletion were to fail, which I doubt it would. Far less notable people than her have WP articles. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To Hfarmer and others: I am in close contact with Miriam. I am hosting her new website (http://www.miriamofficial.de), there you will find a small form that allows you to send messages to her. To me the case is that simple: Miriam is young and has a life to look forward. She may be an icon but she needs to recover. She needs her own time to consider what to do next. And that can't be rushed. I do know and appreciate that you are all eager for 101% facts about what is going on etc. but this has to wait. Again, Miriam needs her time. And if you all love her then please DO understand that NO ONE walks away from such a tragedy in little time smiling. I promise to every one that this page and all info on Miriam is monitored by me and my SPUKHAUS NETWORK and that once the time has come everything will be fine again. I know that Miriam appreciates all your kindness and good words and that - one day in the not too distant future - she will make a comment for you all. But not now and not when you want it. Please respect her privacy. And all will be well. Yours, Joachim ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.67.99.252 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that I don't see how this would prove what you say. Person to person I give people on the internet the benefit of the doubt. WP is different. Their are policies and standards that are bigger than us that have to be respected. Those requier that the kind of changes you want be requested directly by the subject of the article if it is the biography of a living person.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To Hfarmer and others: I deleted what is wrong. I included what is new (website). Here on the "discussions page" I gave a personal statement. And in comparison to the tone on this page I tried to be helpful and polite. For this no proof is needed. All will be dealt with in good times (reasons not to be disclosed right now). And then standarts etc. can be respected. And again: Please respect her privacy. When she feels right to go public she will. Trust me in this. No one should push her around and harm was done enough. Time to relax and wait for her return. In Miriam's time and not in what people or standarts want to have. I tell you all that in the best intention, back off and wait. She is well worth waiting. Yours, Joachim ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.33.46 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Honey on WP proof is always needed. Because without it some one or the other will delete or revert what you did. I will reserve judgement on the officialness of what you are doing for now. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your edits I see you removed something that has citations to back it up the fact that attack happend.  :-(. You also removed some unfounded rumor.  :-) You also added your website to this page W/o offering us any proof of your officialness or relationship to/with Miriam. I am not calling you a "liar" but you realize this is the anonymous internet. We don't know you or your veracity. Yet WP asserts that it is a digest of the facts on a topic. Right now no independant party can confirm what you are saying.

IMHO the fact that she was attacked and has recovered completely is not something to be ashamed of. It shows strength and character in what world are those bad things? Let the one who attacked her be ashamed.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean heck anyone who tries to read her she can say to most other Ts's. "Girl I fell four stories and still look better than you with all your surgery."--Hfarmer (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, you make a science out of something. To your accusations I am telling you in no uncertain words, that you should back off. It took my Network five years to find Miriam. Everyone smart could have found her. The fact that you come here creating an article about Miriam is fine but having so much wrongful information (based to a large amount of gossip, even backed up by citations) does Wikipedia and your precious intentions MORE harm than anything else. Instead of deleting something real and calling me a fan you could have followed her trails, dividing the pityful fiction from the facts. 2. www.spukhaus-productions.de and it's domain network is no fan work. We are a network of artists from around the world that sometime aid fans in achieving their goals. Until Miriam can take over her new domains I am their caretaker. 3. I remove everything that I do not find correct. Several website owners will be contacted too and kindly asked to remove what is wrong. 4. Again, I don't offer proof. First of all because proof can always be forged. Secondly look around the citations, many of them are ONLY based on other gossip (wrong gossip that is). If citations are considered "proof" just because they were printed in a newspaper is not of good value. So, call me a liar. I can live with that, so can Miriam. Because the time hasn't come for her to be back. Once she comes back, then proof is everywhere. 5. I did not delete the article because of the attack mentioned. The attack ist the uttermost sad fact and not doubted at all. The line was deleted for some wrong statements which I couldn't correct as it would give details away not to be disclosed in public. 6. And most important: You wrote "has recovered completely" - where is your proof for that statement? She has recovered, yes (you can read this on Miriam's official site) BUT who said "completely"? Here you kill your whole argumentation by falling into the same trap your trying to implify on me. Hence your statements should be removed, too. Got my meaning? And in no uncertain terms: Pls use your brain: No one is thrown out a house like Miriam and is "completely" recovered after 1 year and a couple of months. Just by repeating nonsens printed everywhere this wonderful wishful thinking doesn't become true. Miriam needs time, this was, is and will be my message. This ia all I have to say. Go, delete the link to her new page again, I will undo. We can play ping pong if you like. Trust me in this (even without proof, just as a human being): I am really the right guy to talk to. I wish you well. Achim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.245.147.81 (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

:-?

All I am asking you to do is to abide by the rules of this website. Look at the history of the article "I" did not create it. Though I have taken it as a project to keep it as accurate as I can. I cannot watch it at all times but there are other editors who can do that as well. For you to make assertions is all well and good. But that is all you have done so far is assert assert assert that you have inside information and contact. I say "prove it".

As for my writing that she has "recovered completely" from seeing a recent picture of her at a party she looks like she has recovered about as much as a person ever does from such a disaster. Perhaps you take issue with my wording...I don't see how that leads back to supporting your arguement that you as Miriam's spokes person should have have the same privillages as the subject of the article herself would have.

To see the Wikipedia policies I am trying to get you to respect please see WP:BLP. Thank you. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a problem in understanding. So for the LAST time I am trying to make myself clear. This article features incorrect information mostly based on gossip. I corrected this but for several reasons my claims cannot be proven. This has nothing to do with not respecting Wikipedia. It is more the fact that Wikipedia wasn't respected by others writing so much wrong information in it. Again, a "citation" based on gossip is not of any value, even if published in a newspaper. // The photo you rely on was publisehd on Hungangels and shows not much more than Miriam's pretty face. Taken in mid December 2007 (10,5 months after the attack) it cannot be granted as "proof" because it just shows the face. By the photo you couldn't even say if she is wearing a wig or not. To use this photo to underline your statement that "she has COMPLETELY recovered" again shows that your own desire to be as accurate as possible ist just thin air. Stop it. Miriam is not a scientific project but a living person. And with any of your statements so far you haven't done well for her. Leave her alone. When the time comes, she will be back, and I make sure that Wikipedia can be used the way it was meant to be. But ... not for now. I ask you for the last time to respect her privacy instead of mocking about wikipedean rules. Achim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.45.15 (talk) 05:35, 18 July

2008 (UTC)

Just which claims are you talking about? On the recovery thing you have a point I'll grant you. But what else? Her filmography? We have references that prove that. Her early life story? That comes from interviews she granted the press.

Looking at the history of the article I notice that some people slipped in things about drugs or jumping into the section that describes her recent attack. Those have happend before and when I come here I check for that. I just haven't had time to do WP lately so those stayed there for a while. As you have noticed anyone can edit the wikipedia and add whatever they want. We have policies that justify removing spurious matterial. Those same policies say that you have to present proof for your claims. You are not above them.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what? I am giving up on you. You do not understand that Wikipedean rules cannot be accepted at this point as they would interfere with Miriam's privacy. You do not back off in this nonsense making Miriam a science. And hence you loose your one and only source. What an irony. I'll come here from time to time to play your stupid ping pong game and delete / add whatever I find appropiate. End of talk. Sorry. You had your chance. /Achim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.36.21 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Giving up just when it seems that by your edits you have started to get it. If you think it is accurate to say "still recovering" I can roll with that. You also see my point about including some indication that she did not die....which is what most people would assume if you just write "so and so was thrown out of a 4th story window." Good good job. Now if you would only look at the appropriate wikipedia policy on external links. WP:FANSITE. All it says and all I say is come back with your link when you have some content on the page. Then we can evaluate that for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Them's the rules and I would enforce them even on my own mother. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the her new website does look very much like a fan site. I notice it says on there that help is wanted to help improve it. I'd strongly suggest using any help that been offered. I can understand that if you are Miriam's manager then you'll be busy with her upcoming tour- use any help you can to sort out her site, seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.23.200 (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can vouch for Joachim being Miriam's manager for a time. He's legit. I would also like to add that I have an image of Miriam which I own the rights to that I'd gladly allow to be posted here. It is an image I own because Miriam did some promotional material for my company. Let me know, somebody, if you'd like it posted in the article here. AdventureMan63

Results of automated peer reivew

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Revamping Layout as per automated peer review

Looking at this article I can see it needs improvement. The draft we have now is the result of compromises just to get reasonably complete information on the subject. Which is what we have. However those of us who have edited this article did not pay much attention to layout and readability issues. So to get the ball rolling I am going to try to conform to the suggestions of the automated peer review tool (see above).

Since we have someone who claims to have more access to the subject I ask this of them if they are still reading this. Can we possibly get a better picture one taken for wikipedia and released under, preferably, a free use license such as the GFDL? So that we may have a clear image not associated with the TV program and in compliance with WP:IUP. Thank you. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The below is a revision as I propose it. What I have done to it is to impose chronological order on it. BLP articles that have been on the front page all follow a Chronological order.

/proposed new version--Hfarmer (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Last but not least it would fill out the article more if there were sources that could say something about. The pilot tv show "speed angels", her more on her non-adult modeling work or anything else that may be out there. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Whats happend?!

Where has her new website gone? Has her new carrer crashed and burned before it even took off? Her website domain has been squatted. Theres no trace of anything on the internet. Her myspace has been left redundant. And theres no trace of her new management anywhere! Does anyone know anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.233 (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Official answer

http://villa-aumund.blogspot.com (Personal blog of Miriam's former manager and SPUKHAUS PRODUCTIONS). "This is to verify that SPUKHAUS PRODUCTIONS GERMANY is no longer helping MIRIAM RIVERA. The reasons are beyond control. All professional and private connections have been severed. SPUKHAUS PRODUCTIONS GERMANY wishes her well. There will be no more statements given. We supported her and this support has come to an end." On the same page you will also find photos showing Miriam Rivera as guest of honour in the long-running Polish talkshow "Rozmowy W Toku" - her appearance was negociated as Mr. Reinhold's last work for her. Miriam's appearance brought the second-best ratings in the show's history. Her former management and their work can be reached as usual at http://www.spukhaus-productions.de. The web pages http://www.myspace.com/miriamrivera are still in business and maintained by Miriam herself. All other pages registered to her former agent were cancelled by Mr Reinhold when his work for Miriam was terminated by him. Edits by Ruediger Mueller, SPUKHAUS PRODUCTIONS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.245.147.81 (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun

It is Wikipedia custom to refer to the subject by his/her preferred pronoun, in this case "her" and "she". Don't change it without discussion. ... discospinster _talk 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting new source

I was revisiting this article to see if the she's had been turned to he's...as they sometimes are. Checking the net for any new reliable information I found this. "

Performing Translatinidad: Miriam the Mexican Transsexual Reality Show Star and the Tropicalization of Difference in Anglo-Australian Media DOI: 10.1177/1363460708100920. I am too busy to check all of this long doccument out myself but there could be some useful isnights in here. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

She?

Is it appropriate to refer to Miriam as a 'she' when he/she still has a penis along with being born a man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.132.116 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wokeness. All cats are british (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:GID Lyndaship (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Larry Miller (entertainer) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1b

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved to Miriam (TV personality). --BDD (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Miriam (entertainer) → Miriam (reality television personality) – or Miriam (TV personality) or better suggestions. (unbundled as requested). This is the Mexican transsexual woman who appeared on the reality television shows There's Something About Miriam and Australian Big Brother 2004. Many possible categories, but not referred to as "entertainer Miriam" in sources. There's also the issue of confusion with the Cantonese singer Miriam Greatest Hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – I don't understand the rationale. Are you saying she is more commonly referred to in sources as "reality television personality Miriam" than as "entertainer Miriam"? It seems both unlikely and irrelevant. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: yes that's exactly what I'm saying: "reality television" Miriam compare "entertainer" "Miriam" -Wikipedia. That is the case so it is not unlikely. Why is how the subject of this article is described in sources irrelevant? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously there are other options: Mirror.co.uk "Transsexual reality star Miriam Rivera is a £300-an-hour escort" January 2010 but per WP:AT we're supposed to make some effort to give titles to articles that reflect sources, she's not called an "entertainer" in sources because she's not an wikt:entertainer. Sorry if the nomination doesn't sufficiently explain the rationale. Do you have a better suggestion? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And iio's response did not answer my complaint. None of those google hits call her "reality television personality Miriam". Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay so Miriam (reality star) per Daily Mirror. Is that okay? or as Paddy Doherty (TV personality) since category prefers "personality" over tabloid headline "star". In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support; "(entertainer)" is always a bad way to title an article, and all articles titled that way should be moved to another title. I suppose there will never be a consensus for moving certain present articles, but they are still wrong. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Miriam (TV personality), which is conciser. I disagree with the IP editor above, as some people are probably best described that way. She doesn't seem to be one of them. Red Slash 01:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Filmography

I am moving the filmography to the talk page as I have doubts if the Victoria listed here is the same as Miriam. (Victoria is mentioned as born in Brazil, while Miriam is borm in Mexico. It is possible that the original birthplace is changed to hide identity but I cannot confirm this on my own. I have found the refs which have been presented below. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Filmography

• Transsexual Beauty Queens 9 (2000, Androgeny Productions)
• Transsexual Beauty Queens 10 (2002, Androgeny Productions)
• There's Something About Miriam (2003, Brighter Pictures)
• Big Brother Australia 2004 (2004, Endemol)
• Transsexual Celebrity Look-A-Likes 2 (2005, Androgeny Productions)
• Transsexual Beauty Queens Unleashed (2005, Androgeny Productions)
• Transsexual Beauty Queens Superstars Volume 1 (2005, Androgeny, Productions)
• There's Something Extra Special About Miriam (2008, Avalon)

References

Sky One

The Sky One reference got borked, not sure who added it, but it is borked enough it is hard for me to fix. Kees08 (Talk) 06:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

We can't use The Sun as a source. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)