Talk:Amy Poehler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why "feminist artist"?

While Poehler is an artist and may indeed consider herself a feminist, there is nothing in this article to distinguish her as a "feminist artist". Find something that supports the label or remove it. Treybien 18:46 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed this "She was promoted from featured player to full cast member on SNL, and is only the second person (the first is Eddie Murphy) to earn this distinction." from the article, as I'm 99% sure it is not correct. I believe I remember Horatio Sanz and Seth Meyers being featured players, and probably Maya Rudolph and Chris Parnell, as well. My general recollection is that at least 1/4 of the SNL regulars started as 'featured players'. Niteowlneils 15:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think Rachel Dratch was, too. RickK 05:25, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

IMDb agrees[1]. Niteowlneils 02:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think bascailly all the performers start as "featured players", generally for the first two years, after which they are promoted to full cast member. The sentence should have said that Poehler was the only one other than Murphy to be made a featured player during her very first season. Whoever originally wrote that left the important bit out. I've corrected it. -R. fiend 07:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Impressions?

Is there any precedent for a list of impressions that she does? If not, is there any reason to include this? It's the bulk of the article. Can't we just say "She does many impressions."? MrCheshire 02:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

oh quite you're whinning

Wow. Terrific grammar there. Much better without the inane list, Cheshire. Well done. -R. fiend 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

Can't anyone find a more flattering picture? She can be quite the attractive woman, that picture does not do her justice... Jersey John 04:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

She IS an attractive person, her beauty cannot be impaired by whatever disadvantageous pictures are taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.96.211 (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to portray subjects accurately, not flatteringly. Does the picture identify her correctly? Yes, it does. 141.213.220.186 02:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Worst doesn't mean most correct. 72.12.170.172 (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah seriously guys, that picture is really...not good. Where do you go to find legal pictures anyway? I can do my best to find another one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.222.253 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You should see the picture on Rebecca Romijn's page. Poehler's doesn't look so bad in comparison. Ariadne55 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This picture is distractingly bad. 68.38.100.103 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The image not only portrays her physically. The facial expression and pose accurately conveys her limited psychological depth and "at-any-cost" purpose to retain celebrity.Traits which will become apparent when Tina Fey's ratings can no longer support other programs and Amy attempts to fend for herself.67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC) yle="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.151.136 (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Early Life & Career

The info under BC college's oldest improv group was wrong-- it was listed as being Second City. I changed it to "My Mother's Fleabag", the actual name of the group.

Updated early life and career sections a bit, giving UCB its own section, as it's such a large part of Poehler's career that I felt it was warranted. Previously, it was listed in the "other work" section.

Gave a little more info regarding her time on SNL, including her debut date.

Is there anything else we're missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.187.111 (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously

Who the fuck watches tv and edits this shit in less than 5 minutes. I just watched weekend update on SNL when she announced she was leaving and some fucker already updated her biography saying she thanked people. Seriously. I wasn't even fucking 5 minutes. Get a fucking lay.65.88.230.11

You do realize that depending on where you are, the show may have aired an hour or so earlier. Plus, this is the Internet. A staff or audience member in the show could update. Relax 97.93.98.250 (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding her new show in the first part

Maybe her new show should be mentioned in the first part of her description. After all she is a starter. And even though we never know what may happen to an early show, like it getting canceled, its still a big deal that she is the lead role in an NBC prime time show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead photo choices

I disagree with Fixedit's judgment of which photo is better. The one Fixedit inserted is blurry, and shows Pohler in partial profile. It's also far lower resolution than the head shot it replaces.

Given Fixedit's recent string of deletions on this, it seems like he/she is trying to make a point of some kind, though I can't imagine what that point might be. What exactly is wrong with the head shot that was here to begin with? -Pete (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Below is a gallery of head shots we have of Poehler; if people feel one is better over the other for the lead, feel free to make your opinion known:

• 
  a
• 
  b
• 
  c
• 
  d
• 
  e

• I'm not sure if you're joking or what. The colors are obviously wrong in D, that's not what her complexion is like, as other photos and videos of her show. It's a poorly taken photograph. Maybe she had turned red for the summer, I don't know. It's not reflective of what she looks like. A, B and E are accurate photos, any of those would be reasonable. Looks like A, C, D and E were taken the same day. C and especially D are defective pictures. Fixentries (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Color blindness - Fixentries (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

German American?

Is she German American? Badagnani (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

judging by her name she is.--Tresckow (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Amy Poehler's ancestry is documented in detail here. Basically, she's 1/8th German, 1/8th Portuguese, 1/8th Anglo, and 5/8ths Irish. Not an atypical combination in Massachusetts. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Amy-poehler-will-arnett-power-comedy-03.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Amy-poehler-will-arnett-power-comedy-03.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) 10:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy's little sister -- Conan

Back in 1999, "Stacey" e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P55OASR5bw ?should be part of Career? 142.229.81.92 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Really?

This article states: "Poehler dropped out of Boston College with a bachelor's degree in media and communications in 1993" Which is it? dropped out or graduated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism. BC Alumni magazine and other sources say she's a grad. WikiMrsP (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Amy's husband

Amy is currently married to actor and comedian Chris Pratt

Incorrect XFEM Skier (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction to mistake on summary

In the summary of the article, it states that Amy is currently starring in the series Welcome to Sweden. This is incorrect. Amy is an executive producer for the show, and while she has indeed guest starred in two episodes so far, she is by no means part of the cast. She isn't listed as part of the cast on the show's official page on the NBC website (http://www.nbc.com/welcome-to-sweden/about), so I am going to change that line of the summary. 105.236.188.240 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

New Article

A new article was recently published about Amy Poehler on Maclean's.com, titled Amy Poehler’s radical message: ‘Be nice. Work hard.’ This article may have additional important information that could be added to this BLP, and can be found at http://www.macleans.ca/society/amy-poehlers-radical-message-be-nice-work-hard/. Best, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 04:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Inside the Actors Studio

This interview provides useful information for the article. Full interview on YouTube. --Lapadite (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Publishing rumors

WikiProject:Biography is very clear that Wikipedia does not publish claims of breakups and relationships that have not been confirmed by the subjects themselves or their representatives. Claims by anonymous, unattributed, shadowy "sources" of uncertain agenda are by definition rumors, and we don't publish rumors. WP:NOTTABLOID applies. If editors want to start an RfC over this, any editor is welcome to do so. I would suggest, based on consensus at Talk:Scarlett Johansson over tabloid reports of her multiple pregnancies, only one instance of which turned out to be true, that most WikiProject:Biography editors would disagree with our publishing rumors. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Entertainment Tonight saying on Sept. 23 that it had "confirmed" Poehler and Kroll's breakup: It was not "confirmed" by the subjects or their representatives, so confirmed by who, exactly? If it's not the subjects or their reps, and it's still just anonymous "sources", then it's not "confirmed" but still gossip and rumor. An encyclopedia is supposed to have a higher standard than tabloid press. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct; WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives also applies." If it hasn't been confirmed by the subject or their reps, then it should not be on the BLP. Lapadite (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Poehler and Arnett's children

I've restored the article to its stable status quo following an editor remove the names and dates of the couple's children and mis-citing WP:BLPNAME and WP:DOB. As the closing admin noted in an identical case at Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP,

NAMES & DATES OF BIRTH OF CHILDREN PERMITTED IN ARTICLE The policy on biographies of living persons clearly leaves the inclusion of details of family members up to the discretion of the article's editors, as long as the information is well-sourced. All editors seem to agree that there are reliable sources, and the overwhelming majority of editors favor keeping full names and dates of birth of the children in the article.--Aervanath (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In the Amy Poehler article, the names and dates were announced by the subject's own representative and published widely in reputable sources including the cited People magazine. If an editor, after having been reverted, wants to challenge the page's status quo in this regard, the proper thing is to discuss the issue here and, if they wish, to call an RfC here. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see the following regarding the same issue and what other editors at BLP/N have already said on the subject: [2].

WP:BLPNAME states: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject"'.

"Low-profile" equals "not also notable".

Further, WP:DOB states: "If the ... person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The same interpretation as yours was already raised and rejected at the RfC.

But given our history, let's not turn this into a protracted argument. Take the month out, if you want. If that compromise doesn't suit you, then call an RfC here. I'm fairly certain the outcome will be the same as at Brian Austin Green. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic

Winkelvi, DO NOT edit another editor's posts. First, you are not allowed to do so. Second, anything that either of us is quotes here is from another editor. You are deliberately trying to bait me, like you do with other editors, and before you make this escalate I will call in the admin who specifically said I should contact him if you behave in this fashion. Stay off my posts. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Um, it's not your "post", you just reproduced someone else's words, reposted them here, and added to them by bolding them. I really don't think you're allowed to do that as it seems to me it's borderline refactoring if not outright refactoring. Did you contact the editor whose words you have reproduced here and changed? Honestly, I'm not trying to deliberately do anything to you. But if you want to get an admin involved, knock yourself out. I haven't done anything to be worried about. Actually, it seems to me that you are the one doing the baiting. You started this discussion about an edit I made. No one forced you to do that or revert my edit. You could have left it alone, but you chose not to. I don't know what else you could have expected by starting a discussion here about my edit other than for me to respond. Not to mention this edit summary ("and since you insist on boldfacing, fine. Here.") certainly has a "neener-neener" baiting tone to it. If you do get an administrator involved, my question would be, "What do you expect to come of it?" -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC) I already addressed your point about quoting other editors and I'm not going to repeat it. I've been editing this article for some time now, including recently enough that I'm well visible in the article's history. 'Despite this, you choose to come edit this article, out of the literally one million-plus on Wikipedia you could edit. What do I expect to come out of it? The only thing I've ever wanted: for you to stay away from me, which I believe you said you would. I offered a good-faith compromise. You don't want to accept it, fine. Withdrawn. If you want to change the article's long-stable status quo in a contentious way, feel free to call an RfC.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "'Despite this, you choose to come edit this article, out of the literally one million-plus on Wikipedia you could edit." I've been editing this article for more than a year (see here). You've been editing this article for a little more than a month (see here). If anyone needs to go elsewhere (as you are implying I should), it's you based on my "seniority" at the article. But, I'm not that kind of person to insist such a thing. It's your choice if you want to stay editing this article, but it's not your right to think you have a lock on editing it based on who (you think) was here first. That's a form of article ownership, isn't it? Besides, if you want to avoid having contact with me, why did you revert my edit, and start this discussion about my edit? My edit that you reverted had nothing to do with anything you edited at this article, after all. Further, now that you know I've been at this article more than a year than you have, why would you want to stay at this article since you say you want to have nothing to do with me? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC) I'm looking at the history. When I started in September, you hadn't been here since May, and without my having gone back to see previous pages of edits I could not have known in September that you were here. Regardless: If an editor wants to make a contentious change to the stable status quo of an article, he needs consensus. I've provided evidence of a recent RfC about an identical issue, which does not show consensus for the type of edit you made. Nonetheless, I offered a compromise, which you rejected with a bunch of bullying boldface. If you feel the RfC consensus was wrong, feel free to call a new RfC. Otherwise, please do not make contentious, non-consensus edits. Ownership? False accusation. Look at the many, many editors who have edited since I began editing here. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Yet another false accusation, which I recall now is something you do. I copy-pasted the outcome of the RfC, so no, I did not change a word. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Not a false accusation at all. You refactored the comments. From WP:RTP: "Refactoring is a redrafting process in which talk page content is moved, removed, revised, restructured, hidden, or otherwise changed." Bolding (which you added to someone else's comments) is a revision and it changed the content you copied and pasted. In my opinion, it really shouldn't be done, which is why I removed the bolding, as it seemed to be against policy. Was it necessary to add it to someone else's words in order for me to understand what you were trying to say? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Bolding did not change the content of what I quoted any more than bolding changed the content of what you quoted. And this going back and changing your original post after I respond to it is not what anyone would consider fair or honorable. You still don't seem to understand what I was trying to say, so in that respect nothing is helping. In any event, I'm not going to continue to discuss whether you have the right to change my post. You made a contentious edit that goes again the consensus of an identical case. I restored the status quo, as was proper. If you believe the status quo is wrong after this, please find a new consensus, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC) I understand what you are saying. I also understand what you are doing. Look, I'm not the one being contentious, I didn't revert anything you placed in or removed from the article. I'm not arguing against anything you've said. All I did was post a link to what has been said previously at BLP/N regarding the same kind of content in other articles and referenced what currently exists at WP:BLPNAME and WP:DOB. Really, nothing I've said indicates I'm spoiling for a fight. I can't, however, say the same for you. I'm not the one who went running to an administrator over something you started. And with that, I'm done discussing this. Can we move on and away from this now? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the children's names can be added to the article - if mentioned in high quality sources and/or announced by the subject or their representatives. Lapadite (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Reported breakup

As is well understand at WIkiProject Biography, we do not include personal-life claims that are not confirmed by the subject or his/her representative or through outlets reporting documentary evidence (such as the fact of a marriage license). In the case of her reported breakup, neither subject nor their reps confirmed this claim, which was based on an anonymous "insider" "source". Anonymously sourced claims are simply rumors. WP:NOTTABLOID. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Additions to the page

I am a student at LSU in a Women and gender studies class and I am going to add to this page. These are the things I want to potential add. Amy Poehler’s work in feminism and comedy. I want to add a section about her being a feminist icon. She is one of the most well known feminist celebrities and oozes feminism with everything she does and her Wikipedia page does not reflect that.

Something’s I might be touching on are: Feminist comedy- SNL Parks and Recreation ; Feminist characters she has played- Leslie Knope, Hillary Clinton ; Broad City- Feminist comedy show ; Smart Girls- Smart Girls at the Party, Smartgirls.com, Smart Girls Youtube ; Feminist quotes/work by her- Her book “Yes Please” ;

Let me know what you think! Kate3925 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Admirable, but sounds like original-research synthesis. Please keep in mind we can only insert opinions stated by reliable-source outlets and authoritative experts, journalists, academics, etc., with drawing any conclusions or interpreting their plain statements. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae that there is some danger in veering into original research, however, I think adding a section on Amy Poehler's Smart Girls would be an easy way to improve the article and reflect some of Poehler's views. Obviously Smart Girls has it's own article, but I do think Amy's role in the company would be relevant to this page. Knope7 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard discussion

As of this moment, there is no consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Amy Poehler to include anonymously sourced gossip about her relationships. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Still true as of nearly three days later. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

At this moment, there has been no easy consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Amy Poehler to keep the reliably sourced content about her ended relationship with Nick Kroll out of the Poehler article. That said, four editors out of seven have been fine with the content being in the article as long as it is reliably sourced, one being an administrator, agr. He cited WP:RS: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and then stated, "Several of the news outlets cited on the breakup have excellent reputations. The LA Times in particular cites "multiple reports" and attempted to contact both parties. WP:RS does not require that we vet the fact checking that our sources actually carry out in each case. Doing so might be appropriate as an extra measure for a highly damaging report about a living person, but the end of a dating relationship does not seem that contentious. I think the sourcing passes muster in this situation." Further, thanks to Politrukki, another reliable source came to light, that being an interview with Poehler in The Guardian [3]. In it, the article's author, Elizabeth Day, stated, "She is so smart and eloquent on the topic that I find myself breezing through all the usual interview questions about where she grew up (Newton, Massachusetts with a younger brother, Greg), what her parents did (high-school teachers) and her past relationships (she’s recently split from fellow comedian Nick Kroll and is divorced from actor Will Arnett, with whom she has two sons, aged seven and five) simply because I want to hear more of what she thinks.". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As several people suggested on the BLP notice board, I have removed the paragraph on the Kroll relationship. The version I removed suggests that Ms. Poehler is in an ongoing relationship with Mr. Kroll, and this is clearly contentious and unsourced, with several sources saying it has ended. While there is a dispute about the reliability of those sources, our WP:BLP policy says unsourced contentious claims must be removed immediately. While it is common for Wikipedia articles to include reliably sourced information on celebrity dating relationships, there is no requirement that we do so in every case. There were several suggestions for compromise wording on the noticeboard and hopefully one can gain a consensus here.--agr (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think your action in removing the paragraph entirely was the best possible compromise and I support it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Kroll split

It was widely reported in September 2015 that Poehler and Kroll split. I think these widespread and credible reports warrant a sentence in this article. If someone can find a better source, please feel free to include it. I think it would be misleading at this point to mention Poehler's relationship with Kroll without mentioning that they split almost a year ago. Knope7 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Knope7. The content is not controversial in nature, it was widely reported, and it should be included in the article. As far as reliable sources go, Us Weekly has been cautiously considered a reliable source, however, The San Jose Mercury News reported on it as well as People Magazine. For Wikipedia's purposes, both articles on the couple's break up are in line with WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, and WP:REF allowing for the content to sufficiently meet the threshold for inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous "sources" on who someone is dating or not dating is not WP:BLP by any means. Additionally, the San Jose Mercury News is simply attributing Us, so that's a false cite. People also uses anonymous "sources." Wikipedia is does not report tabloid rumors. Do we need to take this to an RfC, because I'm sure the consensus will go along with this. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This is in addition to the fact Winkelvi agreed to stay away from me, so if he continues, I'm reopening the ANI and asking the admins who were involved in this to step in. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

All "tabloids" are not equal. In my opinion, there are sufficient indicia of reliability around these reports to warrant their inclusion. Really though I think the options should be include the relationship and break-up or include neither the relationship nor the break-up. If you would like to take it to RfC, then please do. Knope7 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure why "my [i.e. Knope7's] opinion" is sufficient to judge the reliability of anonymous sources. I'm a professional journalist and editor, and in my own opinion I genuinely see no basis for why this anonymous source is better than any another anonymous source in Us Weekly or elsewhere, who might claim this or that actress is pregnant or this or that singer is dating so-and-so. Are you also a media professional? Can you explain the basis for your opinion and what makes any given anonymous source trustworthy or why we should or should not use a gossip magazine's anonymous source? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have my opinion and you have yours. I'm not going to argue over credentials. Let's be civil. I'm willing to discuss this issue and work together constructively, however, I do not appreciate the tone of some of your comments.

The Los Angeles Times and San Jose Mercury News, among others, found the reporting from People and US Weekly sufficiently reliable to be the basis of one of their stories. Nearly every entertainment site ran some version of the story relying on People or US Weekly. People and US Weekly do have reputations for getting stories from celebrities. This story is nearly 10 months old and I searched and was not able to find any credible reports which refuted the split. So, every outlet reporting this story, including reputable papers such as the Los Angeles Times, and no sources refuting it in 10 months suggests it is reliable. I also tried to use language in the article which reflects that the split was reported rather than saying the split was confirmed by the couple. Moreover, I find it misleading to include the relationship without the break-up at this point. Knope7 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times and San Jose Mercury News simply said, "Here's what Us Weekly is claiming." They did not do original reporting and obtain confirmation. A hundred sources could repeat the claim, but it all goes back to the same "source": some anonymous person of uncertain credibility or agenda who gave Us Weekly an unconfirmed claim — which by definition is a rumor. An encyclopedia does not traffic in gossip and rumor.

Newspapers are not encyclopedias. Newspapers are famously "the first draft of history." Encyclopedias should be, as much as humanly possible, the definitive and concrete final word.

RE: "was not able to find any credible reports which refuted the split." Some shadowy person's allegation isn't magically confirmed after 10 months or even 10 years. And if celebrities had to refute every anonymous claim made about them in celebrity magazines and the tabloid press, they'd have little time for anything else. Many, many celebrities never bother to refute media gossip.

RE: "I also tried to use language in the article which reflects that the split was reported rather than saying the split was confirmed by the couple." One of the biggest weasel words we avoid is "reportedly." Anyone can report anything. And simply adding the word "reportedly" to gossip or a rumor doesn't make it OK or encyclopedic.

RE: "I find it misleading to include the relationship without the break-up at this point." You suspect they've broken up — you don't know they've broken up. For all we know, they're still in a relationship but only seeing each other casually. You and I are not privy to their private lives. Some celebrities keep them very private. Some celebrities are homebodies. If an encyclopedia can't verify beyond any shadow of a doubt some claim about a person's private life, then it's gossip and does not belong in an encyclopedia. There's nothing misleading about not making "best guesses" as to whether something is true.

Finally, there's a larger issue at stake: Stating unconfirmed, unverified, anonymously sourced claims as encyclopedic fact. Sometimes those claims will be correct. Sometimes they will not. There's no objective basis for saying, "This anonymous source is OK, but that one isn't." Where do we draw the line? That's the critical question. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

They broke-up. Every entertainment news outlet reporting it is sufficient for me. There are several safeguards here to prevent the slippery slope from adding every article printed about a celebrity. One, both US Weekly and People (article here) reported the break-up with their own sources. These are the most reputable of the celebrity entertainment websites and the most likely to actually cultivate sources close to the celebrities. Two, several more traditional news outlets found the reporting of US Weekly and People solid enough to rely on. In addition to the sources mentioned before I'll add CBS news (article here) Three, nearly 10 months have past with no contrary reporting. I could see waiting a week, a month, maybe even six months to see if a correction or other reporting emerges, but at this point the articles stand. Four, weighing the evidence of a split (US, People, LA Times, CBS, nearly every entertainment news site) versus the evidence that a split did not happen (I found nothing), the weight of evidence suggests they have in fact split. I'll now wait to see if anyone would like to join the discussion before commenting further. Knope7 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You're simply repeating statements I've already addressed in my post just above. Repeating them doesn't make them any more accurate or pertinent. But here's an additional something to address: This is an encyclopedia article, not a fan page that uses gossip sites to keep track of the subject's romantic purported comings-and-goings. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I have been editing this article much longer than you, beginning in August 2014. You showed up here in late September 2015. There is no reason why I should bow out of this discussion or editing the article responsibly and in line with policy just because you are here, too. Allow me to point the following out: of the 38 edits you have made at this article, 30 of them have been complete reversions of what others have added and reversions that continuously cite "NOTATABLOID" - almost all in relation to the content being discussed now. If you want to take part in the discussion in a civil and helpful manner without threats and works toward consensus, that would be great and would be the right step to what our goal as editors is supposed to be. Seriously, two years after Poehler and her ex-boyfriend split up, there is no viable reason to keep that information out of the article and allow it to continue to say they are in a relationship together, when that, in fact, is verifiably untrue. Please work toward a consensus on this to will get that piece of updated information in. Keeping it out, two years down the road, seems counter-productive. Thank you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the BLP project talk page here. Hopefully we can get some help there or possibly others who frequent/watchlist that talk page will come here to offer some help and insight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, here is another source for the split taking place in 2015: "So, if Kroll has finally graduated from douche-dom, why is he currently single? (He and Amy Poehler split up in 2015 after two years of dating.)" per Vanity Fair Knope7 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amy Poehler. 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://archive.is/20130110235003/http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2008/07/nbc-wants-both.html to http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2008/07/nbc-wants-both.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) 01:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP vios

As a fellow editor noted today at User talk:96.236.215.30#September 2017, an anon IP is edit-warring to add uncited BLP claims of ethnic heritage. I ask this anon IP, who is at the cusp of breaking 3RR, to discuss his concerns on this talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Her Middle Name

Her middle name is Meredith according to the IMDB page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Her middle name on IMDB was provided by an IMDB user, which means it is not a reliable source. I have removed her middle name from the article. I will be happy to put it back with a reliable source. Knope7 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added it back with the Los Angeles Times as a source. Knope7 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amy Poehler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review

Early life

• The reference for the sentence "She graduated from Boston College with a bachelor's degree in media and communications in 1993" is a deadline  Done

SNL

• The sentences "Poehler joined the cast of Saturday Night Live (SNL) at the start of the 2001–2002 season. Tina Fey had tried to recruit her for SNL for years" can be combined into one sentence, it seems choppy separated.

 Done

• Try expanding the sentence "She often collaborated with writer Emily Spivey." Maybe add "whom she later starred in films with." It seems odd as a standalone sentence.
• Please try and avoid standalone sentences. Try and expand on "In 2015, during the Saturday Night Live 40th Anniversary Special, she returned to anchor Weekend Update, this time with Tina Fey and Jane Curtin."

Parks and Rec

• The sentence "Poehler was nominated again for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy in 2011..... In 2011" is odd since it has two dates back to back.

 Done

• • Also, is there a better reference for her nomination? Can you please try and find an article etc. rather than her Emmy bio. This may allow for more information to be added.

I consulted other sources but used the Emmy bio because it is the most precise. Knope7 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Host

• The sentences "2015 marked the third successive time Poehler and Fey hosted the Golden Globe Awards. Before the event they confirmed it would be their last time" seems oddly written to me.

Changed.

• The sentences "The show returned for a second season which aired in December 2019. NBC has picked up Making It for a third season" can be combined

Personal life

• Please try and avoid one-sentence standalone. Try and expand/merge "Poehler and Arnett have two sons: Archie, born October 2008, and Abel, born August 2010."

I'm confused by this. I don't expanding and merging sound like contrary suggestions. The paragraph is about Poehler and her children. It's not a stand alone sentence. It's also not uncommon to mention the births of multiple children in a single sentence. Knope7 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Knope7, you're right, it's fine. I have passed the article. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Citation 99 is a deadline  Done
• Citation 56 has a different title (seems to have been updated as the URL is the old title)  Done
• Citation 147 has a broken link to People (magazine).  Done

Ref 146 The 2011 TIME 100

Ref 146 The "2011 TIME 100" does not use a proper cite template and has no author/date parameters, I will let someone more familiar with the article sort it. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kate3925.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)