Talk:Meryl Streep/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

One of the greatest film actors

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." OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 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.

References

• 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)

"Official" Twitter links

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)

Where's the list of films??? Its missing

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)

Minor error in fact?

In the section "Out of Africa and backlash", the article states this: "...Ironweed (1987), in which she sang onscreen for the first time since the television movie Secret Service (1977)." As I recall, Streep sang "God Bless America" at the end of The Deer Hunter (1978). Robtrodes (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Fighting Championship guy

Should we include them? - UFC President Dana White responded "It’s not going to be everybody’s thing, and the last thing I expect is for an uppity 80-year-old lady to be in our demographic and love mixed martial arts." - https://mmainsight.com/news/dana-white-reacts-to-meryl-streeps-mma-snub What information does this comment give to the reader? It is spiteful and he got her age wrong (maliciously). It has little to no encyclopedic value. Opinions?Radiohist (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

No mention of her whining at the Golden Globe Awards on Jan 8, 2017, either. 104.169.26.177 (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Her delusions of grandeur regarding the importance of Hollywood actors and their opinions on political matters should be documented here.198.161.2.211 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• And why doesn't it mention her appearance at Congress to testify about alar, which turned out to be a big scare campaign? That was pretty notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Trump surrogates. First of all, you are supposed to add a : in order to add your opinion, not a *. Second of all, Wikipedia is not Trump's personal propaganda machine. Third, If you work for Donald Trump, kindly tell him stick his head where the sun don't shine.Radiohist (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hoffman accusation

Is there a reason why the below extract is not included in the article?

In a 1979 interview with Time Magazine Streep described meeting him for the first time at an audition for a play he directed several years earlier: “He came up to me and said, ‘I’m Dustin—burp—Hoffman,’ and he put his hand on my breast. What an obnoxious pig, I thought." Mobile mundo (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is also Circassian

>>>>>[Streep to Mehmet ("Dr.") Oz]: "My mother is Circassian, her great grandmother was brought from the Caucasus to Istanbul as a concubine in Sultan Mahmud II's harem. The concubines were removed from the Ottoman court after Mahmud II's death in 1839 and she was married to the imam of a local mosque."<<<<< Hurriyet Daily--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Political views

This neutral-point-of-view dispute concerns the edits that I made at 03:43 and 03:45 on 3 October 2018 and that User:Binksternet made at 03:49 on the same date. I edited "She said that Trump had a very strong platform and was using it inappropriately. He mocked a disabled reporter…" to "She said that Trump had a very strong platform and was using it inappropriately, citing a rally speech during which Trump allegedly mocked a reporter's disability" because, while Trump undisputedly mocked Serge F. Kovaleski, a reporter who is disabled, the text could easily be misconstrued to mean that Trump mocked Kovaleski for his disability, which is unconfirmed and has been substantially disputed since the incident itself. This issue has been a very political and ideological controversy that Wikipedia should aim to avoid participating in.

As Binksternet quickly reverted my edits with the note "Rv... not allegedly," I posted my concerns on his user talk page with the assumption that he made the reversion because he thought that the matter in dispute was whether Trump mocked Kovaleski at all or not. However, during my discussion with him, it became clear that the reason for his edit is that he adamantly believes that Trump did indeed mock Kovaleski's disability, and despite my attempts to convince him that my edits were for the better, he has only accepted evidence in favor of his viewpoint and has taken to accusing me of pushing a "fringe viewpoint"—I am unsure whether this viewpoint is that Trump definitely did not mock or that he may or may not have mocked Kovaleski's disability, but either way, by the standards of Wikipedia, Binksternet is incorrect in this assertion. Binksternet continues to oppose my proposed edit and any further one-on-one discussion with him appears to be futile. To be sure, I am opening this dispute not just because "He mocked a disabled reporter…" could be misconstrued but mostly because, based on my discussion with Binksternet, this sentence is intended to carry a controversial, one-sided, unconfirmed viewpoint.

Please provide your input on this issue, including a possible alternative way that this section's neutrality can be achieved and whether an NPOV dispute is an appropriate way to handle this issue. 74.88.22.174 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop using peripheral topics as coatracks for your views on Donald Trump. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please explain. 74.88.22.174 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Coatracking is the raising of a tangential issue, giving the tangential issue too much weight relative to the original topic.

The question of whether Trump mocked the reporter's disability is not appropriate to Streep's biography. The question should be raised elsewhere. But despite Trump's denial, the issue is fairly well settled, as settled as can be a politically charged question such as this. Trump was lying when he said he never met Kovaleski – he had known Kovaleski for years, they were on a first-name basis, and had met dozens of times. The Washington Post says Streep was correct in saying that Trump mocked the reporter's disability ("Streep ripped Trump for his obvious mockery of a journalist's physical disability"). In his speech, Trump pointed out the physical appearance of Kovaleski, saying "you ought to see this guy", then he flailed his arms. In the video it is important to note that his right hand was raised with the wrist bent downward, the hand hanging down, in the same manner as Kovaleski's own arm and hand with its congenital joint condition. NBC reported in August 2016 the results of a Bloomberg poll finding that, of all the negative things Americans observed about Trump on the campaign trail, the mocking of Kovaleski was judged the worst. This was a huge deal to most Americans. NBC pointed out that Trump was lying when he later said "I didn't know what he looked like. I didn't know he was disabled." Of course, the original dispute was Trump's false claim that large crowds of Arabs were cheering in New York or New Jersey after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Nobody ever reported seeing such crowds of "hundreds" or "thousands" of celebrating Arabs in the local area. Instead, Kovaleski reported that New Jersey police had arrested a few people in Jersey City who were "allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops". Tailgate parties on rooftops cannot hold hundreds or thousands of people. The ethnicity, religion or nationality of the arrested people was not named. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Three/three times/thrice

Okay everyone, let's stop the edit war. What should the lead say?

1. Nominated for a record 21 Academy Awards, she has won three.
2. Nominated for a record 21 Academy Awards, she has won three times.
3. Nominated for a record 21 Academy Awards, she has won thrice.

I've listed these options in alphabetical order. My thinking is that 1 is the most natural phrasing, 2 is also fine, and 3 is unnecessarily old-fashioned. I don't really care which one we use, though—I just want to resolve this and stop the edit war. Anyone else want to weigh in? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

None of these are correct really. While the general rule is that numbers from 1 to 9 should be written as words, and numbers above 9 should be written as numerals - as the person who wrote this obviously knows - one of the exceptions to the rule is that if there are 2 numbers in the same sentence then they should both be written in the same way. So the sentence "Nominated for a record 21 Academy Awards, she has won three," which is what is currently in the article, should be either "Nominated for a record 21 Academy Awards, she has won 3," or "Nominated for a record twenty one Academy Awards, she has won three". FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

21 of 52 dramas (ie not documentaries, cameo, etc). MBG02 (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Crazy template spam

Not one link below helps in furthering knowledge of this bio. Crazy template spam with one of them causing the whole page to need side scrolling on mobile devices.--Moxy 🍁 23:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ancestor terminology

• Her father's lineage traces back to Loffenau, Germany, from where her second great-grandfather, Gottfried Streeb, immigrated to the United States, ...
• Her eighth great-grandfather, Lawrence Wilkinson, was one of the first Europeans to settle in Rhode Island.
• Streep's maternal great-great-grandparents, Manus McFadden and Grace Strain, ...

Now, I'm rather confused about exactly who these people were in relation to Streep. I know what a great-great-grandparent is. Is that the same as a second great-grandfather?

Is an eighth great-grandfather the same as a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather?

There must be some explanation, since we tend to have 1 father, 2 grand-fathers, and 4 great-grandfathers - not 8. But even so, who decides the order of ancestors, if any, within any generation?

The normal way of abbreviating an ancestor with multiple "greats" is: an 8-greats-grandparent, not an eighth great-grandparent.-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Credits

User:MarnetteD, I don't believe my edits were too ambitious. I simply added pretty well known credits added in the lede. Does it make sense to add a relatively unknown film, Death Becomes Her and not Doubt, or even her latest films such as The Post, and Little Women? Could we try to add more titles? Especially some from the 1980s, like Heartburn, Ironweed, and A Cry in the Dark? The One I Left (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)User:The One I Left

You bloated the lede unnecessarily. The rest of your statement is mostly WP:POV and WP:OR since what you deem as important or unimportant will differ from another editors views. Also note that an encyclopedia avoids words like "electrifying". Also be aware that new threads are begun at the bottom of the page and your ping did not work. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD, I just respectfully disagree in the way you used reverted my changes, ultimately removing something based on your personal belief, since "unnecessarily" is subjective. These were good faith additions. It doesn't make sense not to add some of her most important credits. The One I Left (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)User:The One I Left

Three decades in Career missing subtitles

Everything between her '80s stardom and upcoming Internet stuff is blank, overview-wise. There must have been something defining (at least illustrating) her path in the meantime; big movies, charity projects, personality shifts? I'd only be guessing, but some fans could sum these up nicely, could be helpful, just a suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Only Karina Langworth

Don't there exist other film critics than Karin Langworth? I do like her, but this is extremely excessive. Lots of critics wrote about Meryll Streep. ReiniUrban (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Doubts about purported Jewish Ancestry

The wikipedia page says

One of her parents also had Jewish ancestry, although it was Ashkenazi Jewish instead of Sephardi—contrary to what she believed.[1]

However the citation links to an American Jewish publication https://forward.com/culture/449218/on-meryl-streeps-72nd-birthday-her-secret-jewish-history/ which says

There is an awful lot that’s Jew-ish about Meryl Streep — except that she’s not Jewish.

2600:1010:B044:453C:98FC:5C2C:1987:973 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Oscar record contention (first paragraph)

The article claims that Streep’s three Oscar wins are a record second only to Katharine Hepburn. Hepburn’s record is for having won four Oscars for Best Actress. As of 2021, Frances McDormand actually outranks Streep, in that she has won four Oscars, three for Best Actress and one for producing. Streep has three Oscars, one of which was for Best Supporting Actress (for “Kramer vs Kramer”).

Anyone have any suggestions for how to reference this correction? Alanrobts (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the statement should be removed all together. It’s not factual, even if Meryl won another Lead or Supporting Oscar, she still will not be tied with Katharine Hepburn, as Katharine’s wins were all for lead, while one of Meryl’s is for supporting. That’s not a tie, and it’s misleading. Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Meryl Streep was inducted into the New Jersey Hall of Fame in 2008. Elizaruby18 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Silver Disc - Mamma Mia

Meryl was awarded a UK silver disc (200,000 sales/streaming equivalent sales) for Mammma Mia (song) https://www.bpi.co.uk/award/9266-5696-1 Coachtripfan (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Still looking for Streep's one-woman Alice tape

I'd asked about this in 2015: Talk:Meryl Streep/Archive 1#One-woman Alice performance with no response. One of the best performances I've ever seen (when researching it was told it was her college thesis performance). It was shown once on PBS but they had nothing. Anyone know of where to access? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm Randy Kryn. I'm only finding Alice at the Palace. If you haven't asked at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment before you could try there. I've seen some incredibly esoteric and/or obscure questions get an answer by the excellent researchers that work there. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD, will try that later and let you know if they succeed. Good to have a response. In this one-hour show (I think it was an hour, caught it unexpectedly while channel surfing a long time ago and it's maybe the best performance I've ever seen on television) she plays every role in a full Alice in Wonderland. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome RK. Fingers crossed that someone can track it down. I was glad to find Kiss Me Petruchio a couple years ago :-) Raul was taken from us far far too soon. MarnetteD|Talk 17:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I put a note there, and thanks for the link. Just watched a couple minutes of it and Streep had an energy that I wish she still had in performances (I think all actors and politicians should watch clips of their youthful performances in order to wake a little of that up again). Will watch more of Petruchio from your link at some point. If you like Streep and haven't seen her Alice you (and me again if it surfaces) are in for a treat. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Concord Theatricals says it was aired on PBS as Alice in the Palace, and someone uploaded it on YouTube. Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Might be a different performance though, there are other actors in it. Schazjmd (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No filmography?

Every other actor/actress article in Wikipedia uses the word "filmography", but not this one. I came here to scroll through a list of her films... nope. Don't want to read the whole article. Check the table of contents. Not there. Try 'edit source'; word doesn't exist. Try searching Wikipedia for "Meryl Streep filmography". Not that, either. Over 80 films and no such thing as a filmography for Streep. Does no one value consistency any more?

Signed,
Frustrated and probably going to consult IMDb from now on.

Grorp (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I eventually found it, but not with any help from the word 'filmography'. Grorp (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Meryl Streep filmography does exists as a redirect, but I can understand your frustration. It would be helpful to have the word "filmography" in the article somewhere with the appropriate link. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This Meryl Streep on screen and stage is the appropriate link. MarnetteD|Talk 03:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I've been noticing that redirects are not always showing up in a search of Wikipedia lately. I thought they used to. Did something change with the searching or have I always misinterpreted it? Screenshot Grorp (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know if the big format change of a couple months ago might be part of this. You could try the WP:VPT or the Wikipedia:Help desk. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Section header

The use of the term "fluctuations" in the header is misleading at best. Whether the films were considered a success or not is irrelevant to her taking part in them. The full sentence in the lede is She continued to gain awards, and critical praise, for her work in the late 1980s and 1990s, but commercial success was varied, with the comedy Death Becomes Her (1992) and the drama The Bridges of Madison County (1995), her biggest earners in that period. The fact that She continued to gain awards, and critical praise indicates that she did not experience career "fluctuations" - If a WP:RFC is needed over this that is fine but I would object to use of the word in a section header until one occurs. MarnetteD|Talk 00:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Since "commercial success was varied", that's exactly why it states "fluctuations" and not "decline". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Streep - not the films financial success. Her career did not fluctuate. Unless you can show that she stopped receiving offers to be in other films the title is inaccurate. Also, I cannot find a time where the word "decline" was used in that section header so I'm not sure why you are referencing it. MarnetteD|Talk 14:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW the if you had checked the edit history the WP:STATUSQUO version is here and read that way for years. You then changed it to this which was acceptable. You then changed it to this which is not. As I said you are free to run a WP:RFC otherwise per WP:BRD per WP:BRD. MarnetteD|Talk 14:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The very first line in this section reads "Biographer Karen Hollinger described the early 1990s as a downturn in the popularity of Streep's films, attributing this partly to a critical perception that her comedies had been an attempt to convey a lighter image following several serious, but commercially unsuccessful, dramas, and, more significantly, to the lack of options available to an actress in her forties" So yes, she did suffer "fluctuations". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)