Talk:María Félix

Birth date

There has been some confusion about Maria Felix's birth-date. She was born on April 8, 1914 as stated in the IMDB site. The New York Times posted May 4, 1914 because it's true. IMDb does not do any research themselves. They will just copy of of other's websites and put lies so people will do more work.

There are several Mexican sources that agree that Maria Felix birthday was May 04, 1914. Below are some sites that you can visit. Also, La Doña did a TV interview in a Mexican program where she said her birthday was May 04.

Birth certificate

Paco Ignacio Taibo I, a famous Mexican/Spanish writer, found her birth certificate in Sonora stating 1914. Since that day, María Félix never talked to Paco Ignacio ever again. Ask Paco Ignacio Taibo. There is an evidence of her real birthday. The New York Times is not an authority on Maria Felix' life.

More info

For more information on Maria Felix visit [1] or [2].

To the anonymous individual who penned the above and did not sign, please be advised that there is no concrete evidence of her having been born on April 8, 1914, that can override her NY Times obituary, which never printed a retraction or correction. However, in the interests of fairness I have included both opinions with a short explanation of the nature of the dispute.

Please do not vandalise the site by changing or removing without contacing this discussion page first to discuss. Vandalism will result in the page being corrected and protected!!

Thanks!!

Crazy8 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Very strange. Why do you insist upon saying it is uncertain just because The New York Times says one date as if they can't be wrong? All the other sites, including most notably the "official" Mexican one have it as 8 April 1914. I see no problem in taking that as fact unless proven otherwise. What like simple mistakes never happen in major newspapers? Amedeo Felix 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Family History

Hi, if anyone knows anything solid about her family history? I have ulterior motives for wanting to know, because my dad has always said we were related to her, but of course it would add to this page if such information could be got hold of... --Amedeo Felix 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dona Barbara movie poster.jpg

The image Image:Dona Barbara movie poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on artwork lasts 70 years, and so it is safe to avoid using posters from teh 40s for anotehr few years... --Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for edit semi-protection

• María Félix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This needs semi-protection from IP editors, who are rampantly vandalizing the birth dates due to the article's visibility as a Google Doodle. Peaceray (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Peaceray: The proper forum for your request is WP:RFPP. However, since the article is already semi-protected, no further action needs to be taken at this time. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kuyabribri: Thanks! I actually put it there first, but also followed the directions for {{Edit semi-protected}}. Maybe we need to change the documentation on that & the other templates listed in the See also section. Peaceray (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Overly anal-retentive

The editor who submitted the "according to whom" in the main article is ruining the article by reminding the readers of the Wikipedia rules, even when they/we are just trying to acquire information on the subject.

The 'according to whom' note really belongs here on the Talk page, not in the article itself. Thank you 2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5560:1889:FD95:84E (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)ES

Table not matching text/ CORRECT DATE OF BIRTH

While the text of the article correctly reports the subject's birth date as May 4 and date of death as April 8, the inset table lists both as April 8. I was wondering why google created a doodle to honour her death today ... but what I've found on the subject suggests they think it's her DOB. Perhaps your table is their "source"? 71.120.153.143 (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (Still the 8th EDT where I am.)

I also initially believed the NYT obituary indicating she was born 4 May 1914, especially given how rare it is to die on one's birthday (unless intentionally, but I digress). However, this is incorrect. She was born 8 April and her birth was registered in Sonora on 4 May 2014 as per her birth registration (in Spanish). Quis separabit? 21:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been able to see your results yet, but here is yet another date, 6 Apr 1914 (Wikitree). Looks like that was based on 1930 census info. Haven't looked at the original image so maybe it was an OCR error. StrayBolt (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The birth registration of 4 May 2017 clearly states she was born on "ocho de abril" (8th of April). Quis separabit? 23:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

So "encyclopedic" means: Dry, Dusty, & Boring?

One of the most interesting and exciting women of cinema, — of the 20th century, — and I almost fell asleep. But much worse, I did not have a feeling for her as a person, a concept, a woman, nor as the popular icon she intentionally helped design. What!? Wiki thinks the word "lover" and "lovers" are dirty or otherwise inappropriate, —or perhaps that they have in our context, a more accurate and precise word?(Then use it.) They seemingly think "encyclopedic" means: Dry, Dusty, Flavorless, & Souless. AKA: poor writing. Guess what people?—A list of dates, places, and events in prose format is not an article, (nor a history) — it's a list!

While reading the article; the irony; exciting topic V. boring description, was obvious, but it was not until I read the Gaurdian's obit that I realized how bad, how incomplete, thus inaccurate it is. The article is not too short, but it totally ignores some elephants in the room! Shame! Felix would cringe at Wiki's reductive portrayal of her!

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/apr/10/guardianobituaries.filmnews     Maria Felix Mexico's iconic beauty on and off the screen

...She did a television series, La Constitución (1970), won three Ariel awards for best actress, and, in 1985, a lifetime achievement award and the Mexico City Prize. In 1996, she became the first Latin American woman to be made commandeur de l'ordre des arts et des lettres by....

... (one of her numerous ex-lovers), who, to her fury, portrayed her in a transparent dress. She also...
...Felix collected porcelain, carpets, ....
...as one of the world's best-dressed women. King Farouk of Egypt allegedly offered her Nefertiti's crown for one night of love.....
...included a portrait of her astride a rhinoceros....
...Maria de Los Angeles Felix Guerena, actor, collector and racehorse owner, born April 8 1914; died April 8 2002....

Yes I recognize that we don't have professional writers. But is seems to me that somehow, Wiki "editors" (never called "writers" or "authors," Why!?) must be taking good source material and intentionally stripping the soul and essence from it...as if Wiki wants lifeless crap. ...even to portray an undisputed firecracker like María Félix the same way as a big building or Firebaugh's Ferry. (This article, like many in Wikipedia is so close to being good!)

Yes I recognize the "King Farouk" part does not meet wiki standards. (And I agree.) But if it's not true, then perhaps Felix herself was it's author. That spicy flavor is just a small part of what is missing. Don't you dare call that absence: "encyclopedic!"

en·cy·clo·pe·dic adjective
comprehensive in terms of information.
  synonyms:   comprehensive, complete, thorough, thoroughgoing, full, exhaustive, in-depth, wide-ranging, all-inclusive, all-embracing,...
"his encyclopedic knowledge of food",m
Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:39FA:784C:21C9:F793 (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• María Félix & Dolores del Río, jpg.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)