Talk:Melissa McCarthy

Irrelevant Rex Reed

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Original source about my copy-pasted edits

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)

Nobodies

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

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

picture

i think a picture of melissa mccarthy where she doesn't have obvious lipstick on her teeth would be a better representation for her wikipedia page 104.218.69.196 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Booking.com

Melissa McCarthy u r a spokesperson 4 bookings.com. There was a natural disaster on September27 n TN/NC and had already booked a cabin n Maggie Valley NC. Well they r no roads n to Maggie Valley so i asked 4 a refund or a different date and they refused both so I am out $313 and this was my 1st anniversary trip. 2601:846:680:C80:2109:4EEC:4B24:6FFA (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)