# Talk:Vanessa Rousso

She said last night that she received confirmation on that day and that said that it was "100% for sure" in an interview by Amanda Leatherman at the WPT Southern Poker Championship. The source that "Sports Illustrated decided to cancel her inclusion in the issue, with no specific reason given." should be removed at it's in direct conflict to a statement she gave lest then 24 hours ago per WP:V. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
ThePlayr Poker News and Casino City have both reported that SI said she is out, however WPT.com is a pretty reliable source so I have no problem with this being left out for the time being. If it comes out that she is in fact out of the shoot I'll revert your edit. DegenFarang (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Casino City seems like a reliable source to use as a source that she isn't appearing, especially if it's more recent than the other source. The Playr article seems awfully thin on details though. Rray (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
She's in the magazine, but it's a paid advertisement by PokerStars  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.154.82 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 

I have two sources with two different last names for her mother.  Any clue?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know whose record Rousso broke for the youngest female at a final table or if the record still stands?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have some questions about the reliability of the online poker site:

What makes poker-babes.com reliable? 
This site is published by Shirley Rosario (also see WP bio at Shirley Rosario).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I see she is a poker player, but why is her site reliable? Have any publications pointed to it as a good site? It just looks like a SPS, promotional site to me. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Times of London, New York Times, Associated Press, etc. Clearly qualifies as an expert, but also isn't used to reference stats or anything like that, only uncontroverisal stuff. 2005 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
These sources only cite her as the founder of the website, they don't cite the website as a reliable source. Moreover, note that WP:SPS says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes BLP has that line, and there are tens of thousands of articles that ignore it for non-controversial material.  The fact she ran a celebrity charity golf tournament years ago is an interesting tidbit, and hardly controversial.  As for founder of the website, I can't imagine the point you are trying to make.  The person refernced as an expert in the best general interest sources in the world.  Here is an article written by the person.  That is the best use of expert reference by definition. 2005 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
So, find a newspaper source on that golf tournament. If there is no coverage of it, it might not be notable enough to include. That will solve this entire problem. Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What makes pokerstars.com reliable?
This is the leading company in online poker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
A leading company for playing poker. How does that qualify as a reputable source? Synergy 21:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That makes it less reliable to me, as they are going to be promoting poker, not reporting on it in an objective manner. Do other reputable sources uses this site? Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense.  It is cited in interviews all over the place.  Why would we not use something from a Coke website to talk about soft drinks... as long as the text is not promoting itself. 2005 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It is sometimes hard to tell what is promotional and what is not. Notice also that WP:BLP says "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" - can you find this information anywhere else? If not, I will become even more concerned. Awadewit (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing questionable or dubious about the source.  It is the largest online poker website in the world.  And it is being used to reference results of tournaments that it sponsors, as well as her nickname on their site and that she is a player they sponsor.  The one fact that states she is the youngest something or other is referenced twice, so that one would not need the reference from this site, but it is really hard to udnerstand how you can even bring this up, since obviously they are the single best source for their own results! 2005 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that the results and nickname can be quoted from there, but the youngest bit cannot. That needs to come from somewhere else. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This link is broken.
I fixed this link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
What makes thehedonmob.com reliable?
At DYK there is some discussion about this one.  I believe they are leaning toward reliable because it is a publication that recounts industry facts and figures.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks self-published to me - why does it meet WP:SPS? Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Once again a reliable source has a definition, it's not something to discount because you don't like the loo of it.  The Hedon Mob site is referenced by many other sites on the web, including Cardplayer magazine, and more to the point, there are several sites with this data, and no one has ever pointed out any significant mistakes. 2005 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
And I'm asking how it meets that definition. Can you please show me the Cardplayer magazine reference? Thanks. (Btw, if there are other sites that clearly meet RS, why not use those?) Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I just stated that above.  The Mob statistics are used by Cardplayer magazine.  I don't understand your other comment.  There are plenty of sites that have these results data, so we generally use the Mob since it most plainly meets WP:RS.  Beyond that, it's accuracy can be seen by checking out all the other places that list results.  It is proper referencing to use the best source possible. 2005 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
All anyone had to do was link to that Cardplayer link first. That demonstrates it is a RS. Thank you. Awadewit (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What makes pokerlistings.com reliable?
Click on the link and read for yourself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I did and I'm unconvinced it is reliable. Do you have any reason to believe it is reliable? Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think it is unreliable?  And your question is poorly framed.  It isn't a reliable source for cancer reasearch. 2005 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on the editors who want to use the source. (Notice that TonyTheTiger said below he didn't evaluate the sources for reliability before including them in the article.) Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Pokerlistings is quoted by many other websites online, but I doubt it would be "best" source for a tournament report.  It might however note something (like she was wearing a Go Daddy shirt or something) that other sources don't mention. Pokerlistings (like all these others) is certainly a fine source for poker content like rules or perhaps strategy, but it is a weaker source than the hendon Mob for stats. 2005 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please show me something that establishes it as a RS, as you did with hendonmob above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed Pokerlistings and Pokerstars link for the "youngest" clain and replaced it with a lawcrossing one. In a minute I'll switch the stat link to Hendonmob, and delete one link that already has another ref. 2005 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my questions! Awadewit (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In truth, I don't know poker that well. I just googled sites and added them as I found them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
So you don't know that they are reliable, accurate, and reflect this persons poker career? Synergy 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can't include information in the article from these sites, unless you can demonstrate that they are reliable. The first step is to determine whether or not the sources are reliable. Awadewit (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope those responses are satisfactory.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Wheres the proof again? Synergy 21:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
These responses are far from satisfactory. You have not explained in any way how these sources meet WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
As i've pointed out, not counting the Pokerlistings one, the others meet the citeria of reliable sources easily.  Unless you present any evidence of unreliability, what is the point here? 2005 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll give you about day to establish these sources as reliable before I start ripping them out. This is a BLP, and as such, we should be using the best sources available. Not crap you found while googling and tossed them in. Synergy 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You'll just be reverted, please don't randomly rip apart well sourced articles. Please refer to WP:RS, and the text on experts, etc. 2005 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is subject to WP:BLP, so ripping out bad sources is a good thing. None of these websites are established as experts. The onus is on Tony to prove this, not us. So stop turning this around on to suit your needs. Prove these sources are reliable, and they won't be removed. Synergy 22:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Onus on Tony, what are you talking about? This article has been written by many editors. It is a BLP and there are rules covering that.  As I already demonstrated above there is no doubt these are expert sources (except perhaps the Pokerlistings one), and none are referencing anything controversial.  You can challenge references but the onus is on a questioner to demonstrate unreliability, especially in the face of clear evidence they are reliable, not just say they don't "look" good.  "Ripping out" reliable sources from an article contributed to by dozens of articles over a period of years is not appropriate.  As of now, the doc.newsbank.com refs Tony recently added are the ones that do need to be upgraded to real reliable sources, but that is just a metter of finding the original articles. 2005 (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the onus is one the editors at this talk page to demonstrate reliability - those who wish to use the sources must demonstrate that they are reliable. Awadewit (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Since I've already done that, then we can move on. Except the specific usage of Pokerlistings where perhaps Hendon Mob should be used instead, I've demonstrated clearly these are reliable sources.  If you want to somehow dispute the Washinton Post saying Pokerstars is the largest online poker site in the world, or dispute that Cardplayer uses hendon Mob stats, then the onus is now on you to somehow demonstrate that. 2005 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

French american ???? french poker player ??? She speaks poor french, with accent, and use a lot of english words while talking. Please, remove that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.207.71.56 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  12:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

She lived in France until the age of ten and her father is french.  Actually, the techinical definition of French-American is born in America to at least one parent of French heritage.  Unless she denies association with this ethnic identity, it should be in her bio.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  12:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
MOS:CONTEXTBIO says French doesn't belong in lead. Born in US, all notable activities in US. Lived in France for while but irrelevant to her notable activities. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If I am thinking of the correct contestant, I believe it was Rousso who said she was in a relationship with a woman on last night's episode of Big Brother. If this is the case, and obviously if we can find a reliable source, we may need to add a bit to the article about her sexual orientation / relationship status and add appropriate categories. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly how she is being identified on AfterEllen - see here and here. Tabercil (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Since there are credible links showing she has a girlfriend  (who is also her fianceé), I've added her to the LGBT people from the United States category.
Since there's some controversy about whether she is a lesbian, I present to you this interview where she is unambiguous: "I hope that at least opened minds up as to what it means to be in a lesbian relationship," Tabercil (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Still more sources... from the Toronto Sun newspaper: "a millionaire poker playing lesbian, Vanessa Rousso". Tabercil (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
We have had discussions about whether a subject is or "not" LGBT (by "not" I'm referring to if the subject identifies as such). The consensus in a nutshell is that the subject (and only the subject) must explicity state their sexuality, i.e. I'm lesbian/bi/gay/etc. See Jodie Foster and Lindsay Lohan articles and talk pages. South Florida makes it clear "I hope that at least opened minds up as to what it means to be in a lesbian relationship", a lesbian relationship (reworded, a relationship between 2 women), but that doesn't mean she is lesbian. In fact, she was married with a man before (per that article). She belongs to the LGBT ... categories, but not to the Lesbian ... categories unless she say it. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vanessa Rousso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090104045536/http://www.law.miami.edu:80/spotlight/2005.php to http://www.law.miami.edu/spotlight/2005.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100825192237/http://www.law.miami.edu:80/studentorg/miami_law_review/past_boards/editorial_staff_05_06.php?op=6 to http://www.law.miami.edu/studentorg/miami_law_review/past_boards/editorial_staff_05_06.php?op=6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to list the actual name of the law degree, but my edit was reverted. Why not show the actual name of the law degree, as is done for so many other biographies?Lawace (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Just say it plainly so a definition link isn't needed. What is in the article now is clear and correct as per the references used so isn't an error that needs to be fixed. The goal is to communicate with the reader, replacing clearly understandable wording with a somewhat obscure latin term with a new required definition link adds no value to the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)