Talk:Drew Barrymore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDrew Barrymore was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 2, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 8, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 22, 2019.
Current status: Delisted good article

It needs to be added that she's a scab[edit]

What the title says. Articles on celebrities include their scandals, oftentimes showing up within hours of breaking. Yet this has curiously been left out of her article, despite the fact that it's old news.

It leads me to believe that the exclusion of this controversy is in fact being intentionally done. If that's the case it's extremely disappointing and alarming. This site is supposed to have integrity. 63.155.55.221 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded 2600:1702:4100:42F0:312A:951D:638B:E118 (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article folks, Ms. Barrymore's recent action that has some characterizing her as a union strikebreaker - aka as a "scab" - has not been left out of the article - read the second paragraph in the 2020s section of the article, the paragraph that starts with "In September 2023, Barrymore crossed a WGA picket line to continue her syndicated TV talk show". Regardless of how people might feel about Ms. Barrymore's decision, Wikipedia articles about living people must rely on what reliable sources state about her action. For instance, social media posts might characterize what she has done as "scabby" but they're self-published personal opinions and, as such, are not considered a published/reliable/editorially-supervised source. Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The verb tense should be changed to basic past tense in this section. The future-in-the-past tense of "would apologize" and "would delete" is awkwardly and incorrectly-used. She simply "apologized" and "deleted." 2600:1700:5531:3810:D21:99DB:C403:B873 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that - done. Shearonink (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the lead, we would need reliable sources that claimed she was a scab. Do you have any reliable sources where the article's writer claimed she is one? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Source? Open a dictionary, there's your source.

Scab
skăb, n.
An employee who continues work while others are on strike.
What more of a source do you need beyond the meaning of the word and her saying "I'm continuing to work" while the union is on strike?? 209.216.100.15 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the trades. Or the NY Times. Or CNN, People, even the NY Post...the subject of this article issued an update today. This discussion about using the word "scab" to describe her past action has become irrelevant. Shearonink (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So add that she is a prior scab/acab wannabe until (appropriate) backlash, including protests from WGA strikers? KeepItAccurate1.2 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is edited by consensus. Present editorial consensus is against characterizing the subject of this article as a "scab". Describing her in such terms is a POV/personal opinion, violates WP:BLPSTYLE and is obviously WP:CONTENTIOUS. We may all have our own opinions about what the subject has done or not done, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia compiled from reliable sources, not someone's personal blog. The controversy is already discussed at length in the article. If anyone disagrees, consider opening up a WP:Rfc. Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also commend the attention of the anonymous editors above to MOS:LABEL, which says we generally avoid using judgemental terms, at least not in Wikipedia's voice. Now, if someone prominent (like Fran Drescher) calls her a scab for this, that can be put in there, in quotes with attribution. But only then. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Daniel Case - MOS:LABEL/WP:CONTENTIOUS is the applicable guideline here. Though I have seen people using the term on various social media platforms, I haven't seen union leaders/prominent Hollywood pundits being quoted in the trades using the descriptor under discussion here. Shearonink (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that Drescher will, actually. Union leadership usually tries to stay above that; the person you call a scab might have enough friends to tip a later election against you. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stalkers[edit]

Is it worthwhile to mention the recent incident where a man rushed the stage and tried to so *something* to Drew Barrymore? It was a notable incident, but I am not sure if it is worth mentioning on her official page. I am sure that as a celebrity she has lots of weirdos obsessed with her -- letters, presents, videos -- but for one to make it that far? Scary. datagod (talk) 🍁 05:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]