Talk:Melissa McCarthy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sex Symbol

Can this be sourced, and explained, because dimples don't explain that status to me. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocadillion (talk • contribs) 01:05, 9 May 2007

I think it's probably more because of her status as one of the few pretty, sexy large women on TV, who is not generally shown in a disparaging way, but as someone with a life, personality, and storyline that is not based on her weight. A lot of men who are attracted to larger women find her very sexy and attractive (of course the cute dimples may be a part of that). --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.216.115 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2007

Photograph

Why is the photograph of such poor quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.145.238 (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The quality of this photo is low enough that it's probably better to remove it. Antigravityece (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. Unacceptably bad quality. DFS (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've re-added the request for an image, and after another editor, in good faith, added back a defocused crop from Commons, I deleted that. I'm going to put out some requests for CC licensing of some better, possibly pro, images. --Lexein (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Melissa McCarthy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Melissa McCarthy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:MelissaMcCarthy2011THRA.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MelissaMcCarthy2011THRA.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Melissa-Mccarthy-Warner-Shows.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Melissa-Mccarthy-Warner-Shows.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Melissa-Mccarthy-Warner-Shows.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

First cousins with Jenny McCarthy?

The article claims that she and Jenny McCarthy are "first cousins", yet the cited article only says that they're "cousins". Further clarification on exactly how they're related would be helpful. 98.145.185.248 (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're right. I took the word "first" out, because it's not supported by the reference 69.151.56.241 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Catholic category

On Wikipedia a person must self-identify with a particular denomination before being categorized; and the only way to know if they self-identify is a source indicating that the person is currently Catholic (or Baptist, or atheist, or whatever). In the sources cited, McCarthy says she "grew up in a large Catholic family", not that she now identifies herself as a Catholic. I grew up in a large Baptist family, but I am not now a Baptist. If someone grows up an atheist but is now a Christian (see William J. Murray), do we put that person in the "Atheists" category?" MANY people grow up in a particular denomination (or lack thereof in Murray's case) but do not end up claiming that perspective when they are adults. This is a simple matter of following one of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Melissa McCarthy may very well be a Catholic right now, but the article doesn't provide a reliable source in which she states that she is now a Catholic. If someone wants to restore the category, please find a sourced statement to that effect. And remember, the responsibility for sourcing is on the person who adds or restores information. Thank you. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You're hair splitting. The proof is in the article, it's verified in the references provided to support what's in the article. Stop edit warring over this and disrupting the article as well as Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You're violating policy. Several, in fact, including WP:V and WP:BLPCAT, both cornerstone policies. YOU stop edit warring and follow policy. "Growing up" in a religion is not the same as currently identifying with that religion (or in Murray's case, atheism). That has been pointed out numerous times. Which part of that do you not understand? 107.15.192.226 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly I'm violating policy, take your beliefs to the appropriate noticeboard and see where it goes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. That will be my next step if you continue to revert, especially after a discussion here has started, and even more especially if you continue to violate very important policies. Now for something constructive: Do you deny, despite my comments about William J. Murray (which applies to many, many people, not just atheists) that "growing up" in a religion is not the same as identifying with that religion as an adult? 107.15.192.226 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Responses in order: I am? Why would I continue to revert and risk 3RR myself? What "very important policies" am I violating? William J. Murray is not in the article. No, I don't agree because your example and question is a non-sequitur and exclusionary.

Your threat is noted. If you think you have a case, please commence. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you can't seem to understand policies that have been repeatedly explained to you in simple English, we'll see how this discussion goes and, if needed, an RfC. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead with your Rfc. Go ahead with reporting me (as you previously threatened). See how it goes. And personal attack from you is noted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A link to an explanation of your behavior is not a personal attack. But by all means, report me for a personal attack if you feel strongly about it. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

One personal attack doesn't warrant being reported. The warning I placed on your talk page will suffice (for now). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Back to the topic: she hasn't said she's not a Catholic any longer, but has said she grew up in a Catholic home. To Catholics, unless they have converted out of Catholicism or have totally rejected their religious upbringing, that means they still consider themselves Catholic. Has the Catholic Church excommunicated her? If not, then she's Catholic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Did Pope Francis appoint you spokesperson for all Catholics? I've been a Catholic for 30 years, but I must have missed this particular canon law of "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic". I also missed the wiki policy that Wikipedia abides by the opinions the Catholic Church (as interpreted by you) rather than Wikipedia policy. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"...and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Sources, please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

With Winkelvi's reasoning, if she went to Mass 20 years ago, that's notable enough. Let's not split hairs. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WV's position is the most convincing to me. Unless there is a source of her renouncing Catholicism or adopting another denomination or religion, it is fair to call her a Catholic. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. If someone doesn't renounce Satanism or their heterosexuality, we can officially put them in the "Satanist" and "LGBT" categories. BLP concerns are trivial. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I need to respond to this illogical response. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sources for which, Neil? What I stated above or what's already in the article regarding her Catholic upbringing? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: And how is that relevant to her notability as an actor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A ping wasn't necessary. It's relevant to the reported personal life of a notable person. Your point may apply to whether it's included in an infobox (an aspect to consider), but not whether it is mentioned at all. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is about adding a category. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is we don't know if she is a Catholic and cannot assume it to be the case. We need reliable sources for self-identification per WP:BLPCAT and it should be relevant to her notability (if it were we would surely not be having this conversation). HelenOnline 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is. When did I say it wasn't? I think the category is fair, given my previous position. This is my final edit on this matter. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So, no sources provided to show her alleged beliefs are relevant to her notability as an actor. Okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

None. And no source that she currently identifies as Catholic. The religious beliefs of every actor are not automatically relevant to his/her notability. That's why the phrase ""...and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published source" is in WP:BLPCAT. Regardless, however, both her current Catholicism and its relevance to her notability have been challenged, and anything that is challenged requires a reliable source to back it up. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)HelenOnline wrote: "and it should be relevant to her notability". I challenge you, then, to make a point of going to every BLP and Biography article, scour them for attached categories that aren't directly related to the article subject's notability, and remove said categories. How about starting with the Jenna Bush Hager and Chelsea Clinton articles where you were so adamant regarding certain issues surrounding notability? If you don't, then your argument is just as strangely duplicitous as Neil's. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and what were you just saying about personal attacks? Are you going to template yourself? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no attack in what I wrote, Neil. Saying there is duplicity in action isn't a personal attack. It's simply an observation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As was 107.15's observation above, which you templated them for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Challenge all you want WV. This article is about Melissa McCarthy, and the contents of this article do not depend on anyone's ability to "scour" Wikipedia and fix every problem. We all edit one article at a time, and that includes you. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

My response wasn't addressed to you, IP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant. Anyone is entitled to discuss any comment on any article's talk page. Now, please stick to the topic of this section. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

But 107.15., as they have throughout this discussion, has good points. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think their points are all that good. If I did, I would have said so (I don't argue for content/against content in Wikipedia behind a veil, I say what I mean and think). The arguments they are presenting fail to persuade me. Further, their insulting and aggressive style laced with personal attacks pretty much shut my mind off to them. Further still, my comment to Helen regarding "I challenge" was pretty obviously for Helen, but the IP user decided to make it about themselves. Another strike against their credibility and the possibility of having a dog in this fight (in my eyes, anyway). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I won't belabor the "personal attack" issue, but are you stating that I (or anyone) am not entitled to comment about any part of a discussion on an article's talk page? Are you claiming that I am not permitted to comment on a statement that is made on this talk page (rather than a personal comment made at Helen's talk page)? If you think I violated a policy by replying to your comment, please link the policy. If you simply have the opinion that I am not credible, that particularly unimportant personal opinion is not relevant to this discussion. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi re: "How about starting with the Jenna Bush Hager and Chelsea Clinton articles where you were so adamant regarding certain issues surrounding notability?", I think you are confusing me with someone else as I don't recall editing those articles. Please post some diffs so I can see what you are referring to, not that it is relevant to this discussion. HelenOnline 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. You are correct, you have not edited those articles. I was confusing you with another editor whose user name begins with 'H' and was edit warring at the articles I mentioned. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't even a close call. Until and unless McCarthy self-identifies as a practicing Catholic, she shouldn't be categorized as such. Not sure how this is even a question. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ghostbusters III problems

Should we really refer to the planned film as "Ghostbusters III"? The link only redirects to the Ghostbusters franchise article, and since a title hasn't been announced yet, it doesn't make sense anyway. (Not to mention that the film seems to be a reboot, and not a direct sequel.) Also, the article first mentions that McCarthy's participation was announced on January 9, 2015. But the very next sentence/paragraph says the announcement was made on January 27, 2015. (I'm not changing it because I don't know which is correct.) Elsquared (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor Photos Used

The photos used on this page are both unflattering and of poor quality. I know there are many other pictures that would be better suited. I think it would be better that these be changed in respect for the actress as well as the website.

134.48.162.91 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Two out of the three images have changed since then but I don't think the images now are great either. The image used in the infobox doesn't clearly show her face as she is wearing glasses. The image of McCarthy from 2016 wearing a floral pant suit is blurry. It feels a lot like the images were added because they were available not because they were good, or relevant, or improved the article in any particular way. I'm going to remove the blurry 2016 image. -- 109.77.244.106 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The photos currently used are better but still not great, but you can't expect decent lighting in fan photos taken on the street. It seems a shame that we still don't have a better Infobox image than one where McCarthy appears to have lipstick on her teeth. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melissa McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121155221/http://wif.org:80/events/crystal-lucy-awards to http://wif.org/events/crystal-lucy-awards
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newsinfilm.com/2011/11/07/melissa-mccarthy-striking-out-with-tammy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150818152705/http://www.more.com:80/entertainment/celebrities-movies-tv-music/melissa-mccarthy-art-living-fearlessly? to http://www.more.com/entertainment/celebrities-movies-tv-music/melissa-mccarthy-art-living-fearlessly

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melissa McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924041811/http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/entertainment/7792656-418/from-jca-to-cbs-emmy-winner-got-acting-bug-at-joliet-school.html to http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/entertainment/7792656-418/from-jca-to-cbs-emmy-winner-got-acting-bug-at-joliet-school.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Official website

The link to the Melissa McCarthy website at the end of the article goes to a clothing site that's pretty much a dead end. I know McCarthy had an interest in design, but is the website for McCarthy the actress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oirudleahcim (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Good call, that doesn't appear to be an official website but is just for her Seven7 clothing line. I've gone ahead and removed it. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Melissa McCarthy.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Rex Reed

I suggest the Rex Reed comments be removed from this article as irrelevant. But if people really think the comments should remain then it would be better if the response from McCarthy was also included.

• McCarthy later responded, expressing surprise the review was even approved for publication, and said "I felt really bad for someone who is swimming in so much hate. I just thought, that’s someone who’s in a really bad spot, and I am in such a happy spot. I laugh my head off every day with my husband and my kids who are mooning me and singing me songs."

The article for the film Identity Thief already discusses the matter in some detail and I think that is the most appropriate and relevant place for it. The article biographical article for Rex Reed again repeats much of the same information where it is still somewhat relevant as it fits a into a pattern, but I don't think they should be dignified by including them here also. The only thing I feel is relevant to this article is that she was classy enough to remain above the noise and only commented on it briefly months later. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

References