Talk:Meryl Streep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Meryl Streep has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 3, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Meryl Streep. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Where's the list of films??? Its missing[edit]

Where's the list of films??? Its missing (UNSIGNED by 220.227.149.70) - November 18, 2015)

See: Meryl Streep on screen and stage --- Professor JR (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there's usually a "Filmography" link, even when there are stage credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.50.44 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

one of the greatest film actors[edit]

Saying that "she is widely regarded as one of the greatest film actors of all time" on the basis of two books and a source I can't identify with a Google search, seems to be unjustified, as well as a violation of WP:NPOV AND WP:PEACOCK.

She isn't even listed in the American Film Institute's list http://www.afi.com/100Years/stars.aspx . I think we should change it to something less effusive.

And can somebody identify "The Middle East. Library Information and Research Service. 2005." or should we delete that too? --Nbauman (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I was WP:Be bold and took it out. Statements like "...widely regarded as one of the greatest" is arguably weasel wording ("widely regarded" and "one of the greatest"). Wikipedia should stick close to verifiable facts and not make sweeping statements about the greatness of actors, musicians or presidents (or about the wickedness or cruelness of kings, queens or rulers). If reliable sources Smith and Jones, top film critics, call an actor "the best actor of her generation", fine, make that claim, but it should be attributed in text to those 2 experts, rather than being a sweeping claim of greatness: "According to Sue Smith, film critic from the New York Times and Mary Jones, movie critic from Variety, Streep is the top actor of her generation". (References are made-up examples). In the example given, the assessment is attributed specifically to Smith and Jones, rather than to ALL movie critics in general. I don't think it is helpful for all leading actors' articles to say "X is widely considered to be one of the greatest actors of all time." OnBeyondZebraxTALK 15:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nbauman. Streep not being listed on the American Film Institute's list in 1999 is not really relevant. A living actor had to have made their film debut by 1950 to be eligible, so people like Streep and Shirley MacLaine did not qualify for consideration. L1975p (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, User:L1975p. I believe that "she is widely regarded as one of the greatest film actors of all time" is a clear violation of WP:PEACOCK:
Puffery

... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome ...

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.[1]
  • Peacock example:
    • Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.
  • Just the facts:
    • Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[citation omitted] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists. [citation omitted]
This entire quote is cited to just one source, and I can't even find the text. (Apparently she merely won the "best actress" award.) At the very least, you would need multiple WP:RS to support a claim like that, and it would fail WP:PEACOCK anyway.
I think User:OnBeyondZebrax would agree with me. I think there is a consensus that it doesn't belong, and it should go out.
I'd like to know why you think it doesn't violate WP:PEACOCK. --Nbauman (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me, I never said that it doesn't violate WP:PEACOCK, and i'm not suggesting that the sentence be included. I was just pointing out to you, and to anyone else who may read this page, that Streep not being included on the 1999 American Film Institute list is not relevant here, and that in a similar AFI list done today, she would almost certainly rank very highly. I'm fine with the page saying "best actress (or best film actress) of her generation". As I said, my response was to do with your "she isn't even listed in the American Film Institute list" comment, because it was not possible for her to be listed, due to the fact that her first film appearance was not until 1977. L1975p (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. If "best actress of her generation" violates WP:PEACOCK, then we can't use it. We have to follow WP rules. It sounds like you wouldn't object to my removing it. Right? --Nbauman (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I think "best actress of her generation" is acceptable—it is a direct quotation attributed to a secondary source that appears to be reliable, and does not violate WP:PEACOCK. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I've no objection to you removing it, but if it stays, I think it should be more specific, as not everyone regards her as the best of her generation. L1975p (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point—I've rephrased the sentence to reflect the source more precisely. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Mr. Granger, please read WP:PEACOCK (which I've quoted above) and tell me why it doesn't violate WP:PEACOCK. The term "great" is specifically listed as a Peacock term. --Nbauman (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The term "great" is not in the quotation I am talking about. WP:PEACOCK is intended to prohibit the use of positive words that promote the subject without imparting verifiable information. In contrast, this quotation is imparting verifiable information—that critics have repeatedly called Streep the "best actress of her generation". It is normal and acceptable for the lead of an article to summarize its subject's critical reception, which is what this quotation accomplishes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL may apply. Lapadite (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Who are those critics? Any claim in WP requires multiple WP:RS. One book isn't sufficient. And yes, this is an exceptional claim. --Nbauman (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not true that any claim in WP requires multiple RSs. One RS is usually sufficient, per WP:V: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability ... is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Moreover, I do not think this is an exceptional claim—it is well known that Streep is considered an excellent actress. Nonetheless, I have added two more references, both secondary sources, that support the quotation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I still think it violates WP:PEACOCK. The quotes are mere opinions. They give no supporting information. According to WP:PEACOCK, "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." If she won an award by a recognized third party for "best actress," or "best actress of her generation," that would be acceptable. But it's not enough to merely have some fans or critics who think she's the "best actress of her generation." If you do a Google search for "best actress of her generation," you'll find lots of other choices from WP:RS. For example, http://www.imdb.com/list/ls009386198/ . That's why it's just a peacock term. Why aren't one of those other actresses the best actress of that generation? --Nbauman (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
We are using facts and attribution! The fact that she has been repeatedly called the "best actress of her generation" is attributed to three secondary sources. We don't just have fans and critics describing her that way—we have secondary sources noting that critics describe her that way. In my opinion, this is actually better sourced than the example given under the bullet point "Just the facts" in WP:PEACOCK, which is intended as an example of appropriate material that does not violate the guideline.
With respect to those other actresses, if they also have reliable secondary sources saying that they have been repeatedly called the "best actress of her generation", then I think that would make a good addition to their articles. I do think that if there are hundreds of actresses for which such sources exist, then it would not be a very meaningful piece of information. (Maybe this is the point you're getting at.) But I don't think that will turn out to be the case—after a bit of searching, the only use of that phrase that I can find other than primary sources and references to Streep is this reference to Susanna Cibber, who was active in the 18th century. Perhaps this would be a good addition to her article as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Whether Streep is the "best actress of her generation" is not a fact, it's an opinion. There is no way to determine that objectively. That's one of the reasons it's a peacock term, and it doesn't matter if you do have attribution. It is WP:PEACOCK to call somebody "legendary," "great," "acclaimed," etc., or to say that they are "repeatedly called legendary..." etc. even if you do have repeated attribution. It's a meaningless platitude. None of your sources even explain why they think she is the "best actress of her generation." It's what WP:PEACOCK calls "unprovable proclamations". Any publicist can say that. Any fan can say that, in an article or a book. Did you actually read those books, or did you just find the appropriate phrase in a Google search? --Nbauman (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This argument sounds to me like it would apply to the example given under the "Just the facts" bullet point at WP:PEACOCK—after all, "master poet" is an opinion just as much as "best actress". Could you please explain why you consider this quotation less acceptable than that one? —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You can certainly Google the likes of Juliane Moore, Vanessa Redgrave, Cate Blanchett, Kate Winslet, Tilda Swinton, Marion Cotillard, Gena Rowlands + best actress of her generation (or any praise along those lines) and you'll find a number of RS calling them that. I don't think it dilutes any one individual's acclaim though, and RSs surely deem Streep one of the most acclaimed actresses (which perhaps is a less contentious way of putting it). WP:PEACOCK gives an example of how such praise should be framed, noted above by Nbauman. Lapadite (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mr. Granger, did you read those books, or did you just read the Google snippits? --Nbauman (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not read the entire books. I don't see how this is relevant. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It's relevant because WP:PEACOCK says, "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." There are no facts in those snippits to demonstrate that importance. If I understand you correctly, you didn't read anything beyond the snippits, so we're both looking at the same text. What facts demonstrate that she is the "best actress" of her generation? --Nbauman (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
There are no facts to demonstrate she is the best, that's kind of the point, but to be fair to Mr. Granger, that's not what they are advocating. The page as it stands doesn't say she Is the best of her generation, it says she has been called that. L1975p (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but in order to be admissible in Wikipedia, the claim has to be attributed to a WP:RS. At the very least, you would have to say that Karen Hollinger called her the "best actress of her generation", but I think it's still puffery in violation of WP:PEACOCK. You would need supporting facts, as in the example of Bob Dylan above: 'Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".' What facts do you have, like the Time 100, to support the claim that Streep is the "best actress of her generation"? What facts does Hollinger give? --Nbauman (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not claiming that Streep is the best actress of her generation! I am claiming that she has been repeatedly called the best actress of her generation. It is a very well-sourced fact that she has been called this. And to be clear, it is not true that Karen Hollinger called her the best actress of her generation. Rather, Hollinger's book is a secondary source stating that she has been repeatedly called this—an important distinction for a statement like this.
In terms of other facts to add details (if that is what you're looking for), the sentence already mentions that Streep is a three-time academy award winner. If you want, we could also mention her "technical mastery" and "command of accents", according to the second source. Would that satisfy your objection? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It may be a fact that some (so far unidentified) people have called her this, but it's not acceptable as a fact that can be used in Wikipedia, since WP:PEACOCK is a Wikipedia guideline. It is a well-source fact that many people have said that vaccination causes autism, but we wouldn't include that in the entry under autism unless we made it clear that there was weak or no support for that belief. You can't include anything you want in Wikipedia merely by prefacing it with "many people say...."
The only thing that would satisfy my objection would be something that follows the WP:PEACOCK example above of Bob Dylan -- an attrbuted direct quote to a notable WP:RS source, saying that he or she thinks that Streep is the best actress of her generation for a specific reason. And even so, the source couldn't just be some fan, it would have to be someone of notability like Time magazine in the example of Bob Dylan above. Here it is again for your convenience:
Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[citation omitted] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.
A statement like that is the only thing that would satisfy Wikipedia (and me). --Nbauman (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Now I think I understand where you're coming from—but I still think you're interpreting WP:PEACOCK in an extreme way. There is no requirement that all statements in Wikipedia must be of the form "Person A says X", where Person A is notable. Rather, there is a requirement that statements (or at least statements that might be challenged) be attributed to a reliable source using inline citations. The statement that Meryl Streep has been called the "best actress of her generation" is attributed to three reliable sources.
To address your autism example, our article Autism (which is a featured article) currently says "Although no links have been found, ... environmental factors that have been claimed to contribute to or exacerbate autism, include ... vaccines". It does not say something like "Andrew Wakefield has claimed that vaccines cause autism", which is what your interpretation of the rules would require, if I understand you correctly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Meryl Streep. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Official" Twitter links[edit]

We have now had two attempts in recent days to add two different Twitter links as Streep's "official" Twitter account. Since anyone can start up a Twitter account and claim it to be "official", we cannot accept either of these links without some form of reliable confirmation that they represent Ms. Streep's official Twitter presence. -- The Anome (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What is with the low-key article? It misrepresents reality & its history[edit]

I have not yet looked at earlier versions of this article to see whether information has been deliberately removed previously but it seriously misrepresents Meryl Streep's upbringing and earlier years. For some odd reason it seems to downplay her adolescence despite the fact that she was already famous (almost if not legendary) locally. There is no mention in the article of her being head of the cheerleaders (she is described as just a cheerleader) or of her being homecoming queen, or her acting performances in high school. That is rewriting reality (which Wikipedia has a very strong tendency to do) in its purest form. This article needs to have these issues of misrepresentation - I am sure there are more - fixed, to match the reality of someone's apparently intentional misportrayal of circumstance... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ The template {{Peacock term}} is available for inline notation of such language where used inappropriately.