Talk:Melissa McCarthy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melissa McCarthy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Screenwriters Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irrelevant Rex Reed[edit]

No one responded last time I asked Talk:Melissa_McCarthy/Archive_1#Rex_Reed but lets try this again.

This is a biographical article about Melissa McCarthy. ~~WP:BIO~~ WP:BLP biographical articles are held to a higher standard. There is really no need to draw undue attention to insults from Rex Reed. They are somewhat relevant to the film Identity Thief and already better addressed in detail there. McCarthy rightly ignored the insults and only responded much later and this one off minor controversy from a lazy film critic simply isn't relevant to her biography.

Please explain why you would want to keep insults about someone in their biography. -- 109.78.207.234 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know where to begin with this, but leaving the bit in is not the same as insulting the subject, which you seem to be under the impression is happening. The quote says more about Rex Reed than McCarthy, anyway.--Jorm (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The quote says more about Rex Reed than McCarthy, anyway." That's my point, it is relevant to the article on Rex Reed, not the biography of Melissa McCarthy. -- 109.78.207.234 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again please make it clear why you think it is important to keep this information in the article. I can't be sure from your last comment, it seems like you agree that the comments are not particularly relevant to this article. -- 109.78.206.105 (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to WP:BLP and WP:BRD. If no one is going to engage in discussion then I'm going to boldly remove again.

The articles for Rex Reed and the article for the film Identity Thief are the appropriate places for this, and both already include most of this same information. -- 109.79.181.75 (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People keep reverting but are unwilling to discuss why they want to keep this material. I redirect your attention to WP:BLP:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

There should be discussion if this material is to be kept and why. It should not be in the article in the meantime. -- 109.79.168.130 (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the actual paragraph I have to agree it doesn't belong in the article at all, It belongs in the Identity Thief article as the comments were inregards to her weight in the film and not in actual person if that makes sense ....., Pinging Jorm and FlightTime who have also reverted the IP here. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to follow policy and abide by the local consensus, if other people also play by the rules and discuss here on the talk page.

I think FlightTime was initially concerned that hadn't made any effort to discuss before challenging the material. I have started two discussions even though I don't believe the burden is actually on me to prove why this statements should be kept.

I'm still not clear why Jorm seems to think these statements should be kept in the article. I waited several days for clarification, because it seemed like he recognized the low relevance of the comments to this particular article.

It isn't like the article doesn't already discuss her weight in the section Personal life, which is why the Rex Reed comments seem so irrelevant and unnecessary. -- 109.79.168.130 (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I simply assumed you were removing unproblematic sourced content hence my RFC comments, Certainly should've read what I was reverting before' I was reverting it so my apologies for unintentionally prolonging this issue, You did everything correctly as far as I'm concerned. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this requires further discussion I might not have time to return to this discussion until next weekend. -- 109.79.168.130 (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be settled then. No need to include Rex Reed in the Melissa McCarthy article, it is covered in Rex Reed (relevant because it is part of a larger pattern) and Identity Thief (where it is most specifically relevant) and I think those two place are plenty. -- 109.79.179.190 (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original source about my copy-pasted edits[edit]

Sorry for didn’t provide it in the edit summary but that was copied from Archewell. You can also see the original information at here. Thank you. Definitelyduke255 (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobodies[edit]

Executive production and acting role in Nobodies missing NellyAllday (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's under television. $chnauzer 21:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]