Talk:Amy Schumer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Note that although I closed the above AfD as "relist", the article has been improved to the point where I believe it's notable enough for here easily. Wizardman 17:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.109.116.204, 21 September 2011

Amy was on Opie and Anthony today, 21 September 2011, and I wish to add that to the list of dates.

98.109.116.204 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bhblack, 24 September 2011

Add category "American Jews", "American Jewish Comedians" Mentioned by Amy on Amy's Cutting album Bhblack (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Influences

Is there a source for the list of comediennes named as her influences in the infobox? I also wonder if asking a comic who her influences are is as inane as asking the same of a musician. --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

23 July 2015 Lafayette shooting

Please add her reaction to the shooting that occurred during a screening of her Trainwreck film in Lafayette LA. [1][2][3] --- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Trainwreck (film) / 2015 Lafayette shooting

Not done: seems WP:UNDUE here. It's already and more appropriately on the shooting's page Cannolis (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: she is the star of the film, her reaction would be appropriate to document -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Guns

Today, Schumer and her cousin Chuck had a press conference about legislation intending to ensure that people like the Trainwreck shooter in Lafayette can't as easily obtain guns. This should be added here in some fashion, but where? Does it go into some kind of a "political" section along with the issue of the racial jokes from years ago? It's own section? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP

Another editor is claiming that his edit, which he reverted after removal here. is based on WP:BLP vios.

The section concern an op-ed writer who called Amy Schumer racist (literally; the headline reads: "Don’t believe her defenders. Amy Schumer’s jokes are racist").

The other editor, ironically, is himself violating WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE by allowing Schumer to be called racist, which he does by removing a well-cited statement pointing out widespread criticism of the op-ed that had made that WP:FRINGE claim.

The editor says the statement "the article was widely deprecated" is poorly cited. That is not so:

The first cite was Mediaite, the flagship blog of ABC legal analyst Dan Abrams and a reliable source under Wikipedia standards. [4] The quote in the footnote reads, "...the Washington Post came to publish an article that was widely derided as both hyperbolic and reductive." That directly supports the statement.

The next cite, from Michelle Malkin's website, another RS, criticizes the op-ed and quotes the op-ed writer saying she (the writer) never even saw Schumer's act. This is followed by a cite from Time Warner Cable's news and opinion website TWC Central, which also supports the statement "the article was widely deprecated."

The editor then objects to citations for "Days later, [op-ed writer Dr. Stacey] Patton said she had not watched any of Schumer's work before writing the article, which was pitched to her by the newspaper." The citation is a direct interview with Patton herself stating exactly what the sentence claims — yet this editor claims that the cite doesn't support the sentence!

Calling Schumer a racist without noting the well-documented criticism of the op-ed that claimed so is the BLP violation. As the other editor notes, the burden of evidence is on the editor who removes or adds content. This editor removed content without providing evidence of why. And while I'm not the editors who inserted this content (which I did archive as pro forma), I have shown that the content is appropriate balance to claims that Schumer is a racist. I ask other editors to comment, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

(here from notice at WP:BLP/N)My opinion is that Patton/Leonard's story shouldn't be in the article at all, especially in the light that Patton hadn't seen/read any of Schumer's work. Stickee (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Stickee: That would be my preference as well, since it was a tempest in teapot and only briefly topical news. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason to have anything about that story in there. The two sentences beforehand, referring to the Guardian article and giving Schumer's response to it, are sufficient to deal with the criticism on race. While my removals sought to enforce the high sourcing standards required by BLP, I can understand on reflection that they could be regarded as making the section unbalanced. There being a 3-1 consensus in favour of removing all the material about the WaPo article, I will remove it. Neljack (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I had balanced the content on Patton's criticism, in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT (the original text sorely violating that). It's noted in the article that Schumer received some criticism from a writer for The Guardian, and she had responded to such criticism. So I would keep this in the article. And it goes without saying Neljack's reverts here are absurd and against WP policy. Lapadite (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2016

Amy Schumer guest starred in an Australian television series called Open Slather in 2015 and it wasn't in the filmography section of the article. Koomen (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think being on Open Slather is very controversial. Most of her other filmography is not cited. Here are reference to her being on the show. ComedyChannel , IMDB, comparetv Whiteboycat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Category:American Reform Jews

She attended a Reform synagogue as a child. She never recanted her religion. She is a Reform Jew. Why are you questioning this and removing the category, User:Signedzzz? We're not saying she's a rabbi; simply which confessional division of Judaism she was raised in.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If someone went to a Catholic school, we don't say they are a Catholic (unless they say so themselves). How is this any different? Note 14 says "I had my Bat Mitzvah, and then I think that might be the last time I was in a temple." zzz (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Hebrew school. I don't think it means she went to a Hebrew-speaking primary school in this case. She went to classes where she read the Torah and other Jewish texts, at "a Reform Congregation". She may not go to the synagogue every week as an adult, but that's not the point.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

She went to "the Jewish equivalent of Sunday school – an educational regimen separate from secular education, focusing on topics of Jewish history and learning the Hebrew language". The category "Reform Jew" seems to imply that this is her religion (which cannot be inferred solely from her attendance at this school as a child). She could be an atheist (probably), or whatever. zzz (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article suggests she is (still) a Reform Jew. She never recanted it. I see no indication that she is an atheist.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That article doesn't provide any evidence of her religion as an adult. She has stated that she never attended a synagogue since childhood. Unless we have a statement from her, we don't know what (if any) her religion is. zzz (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it has to be a third-party source like the JTA article, not a primary source. I don't think adding Category:American Reform Jews means she is particularly observant; it just means that she is neither Orthodox nor Conservative.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia policy concerning this, WP:BLPCAT, and it says (in part):

Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

In other words, beside being impermissible original research, drawing inferences about whether somebody is or isn't a Reform Jew based on where they attended Hebrew School 20 years ago may not be used as the basis of putting them into Category:American Reform Jews. Unless you can find a source in which Schumer describes herself as a Reform Jew, and that fact is somehow relevant to her notability, she doesn't belong in the category. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

She has mentioned in the past being Jewish on Opie and Anthony, however I do not have a date as a source, nor do I believe she stated affiliation. Stating that she isn't Orthodox or Conservative doesn't make her reform. Maybe she is Reconstructionist. Maybe her mother is Catholic and her father Jewish making her Catholic according to both religions. Lack of Orthodox or Conservative doesn't make her Reform by default. She could also just be unaffiliated. - Galatz^Talk 19:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Galatz: She attended a Reform synagogue growing up. See the article from the JTA. She also shared this video on Twitter. Btw, this article in Forward says her mother is Jewish too, so I changed the article, which formerly said her mother was Protestant (unless her mother was raised as a Protestant and converted to Judaism for her husband?). I am not sure if she has done philanthropic work to combat antisemitism--let me know if you can find some references.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Again growing up a specific way and sharing something specific doesn't mean that people associate that way. I grew up Conservative, shared a link to something Lubavitch and go to a Modern Orthdox shul. Does that mean I am all three? Based on your criteria I would goes so. - Galatz^Talk 20:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Galatz: This talkpage is about Amy Schumer, for the sole purpose of improving the article. I'm happy for you, but your own life is off topic. There is no indication that she has become Orthodox or Conservative. She was raised Reform. Thus, the category seems relevant. It is based on referenced info.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Amy's mother wasn't born into a Jewish family, but it's possible that she converted to Judaism. Although she may have been involved in a Reform Jewish temple without having to formally convert to Judaism. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: Can you find a third-party reference about her mother's supposedly Protestant background? I am sorry, but the Forward article is one and it says her mother is Jewish. What Schumer said in an episode is not a reliable source; not only is it a primary source, but Schumer works in the entertainment industry and it may be fiction. Please stick to reliable sources. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say in The Forward reference that her mother is Jewish? Being involved in a spouse's Reform Jewish temple doesn't make her Jewish. Amy has called herself "half Jewish", by the way. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

[Conflict edit] User:All Hallow's Wraith: Why did you remove her childhood experience with antisemitism? There is a direct quote from her where she talks about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice it. I'll restore it, no problem. BTW, she's called herself "a dirty half Jew" on another occasion. Also, if you're interested in her mother's genealogy, there's some of it here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think reference 12 (Stated on Inside Amy Schumer, Episode: "Terrible People", June 25, 2013, Comedy Central) is not reliable. It's a primary source and it's taken from a work of fiction for television.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The exact line was "I'm Jewish. Like my mom's Protestant and my dad's Jewish so like will I go to hell?" Given what we know about Schumer, is there any reason to doubt the factual accuracy of this statement? If she was joking, she could have said she's LDS. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: If it's taken from her show, it's taken from a work of fiction. You just can't use it as a reference. Her mother might be Protestant, but it remains an unknown known for now. That genealogy website you mentioned is not a reliable reference either.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a "work of fiction" like a scripted sitcom, it incorporates Schumer's own life in the same way David Letterman, Jon Stewart, and Conan O'Brien have incorporated facts from their own life into their shows. You're nitpicking at something that you yourself without question now know is accurate. Enough. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: It's a work of fiction! It's scripted. It's a character. Sure, it's a character based on her own life, but it's not real life. (Do you think the Sleep Gym is real life? If it is, sign me up!) It's not a reliable reference, I'm sorry.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's Schumer as herself. Enough, enough. You've seen her call herself "half Jewish" over and over. Enough. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: The information may be correct (an unknown known at this stage), but citing a work of fiction is not kosher and you know it. Let's stick to third-party references from articles, etc., not television transcripts. I think you should remove the Inside Amy Schumer unreliable reference.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No we should not remove it and it's obviously not a work of fiction. BTW, Amy's maternal grandmother's obituary mentions her Methodist church membership. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: Why do you think the Sleep Gym is not a work of fiction? Are you joking?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

David Letterman and Jon Stewart had obviously fictional comedic skits on their shows, too. That doesn't mean we can't use the shows as references for obviously accurate biographical information about them (or about their guests). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: Yes, it does. Television is not real life. It is primarily about advertising through entertainment/distraction. Her show is scripted. It is not a reliable reference at all. The obituary you mentioned would be though--why not replace the reference?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You want me to replace that reference with the obituary reference, without changing any of the text? That I can do, if you'd like. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: Yes please.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: Thank you for doing this. I suppose there is no consensus about the category, so I'll just leave it. Btw, please ping me if you find references about her philanthropic engagements to combat antisemitism. This should definitely be added to the article. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Dayle23's edits

Okey you are trying to source:

"Schumer caused controversy in 2014 by admitting to engaging in sexual intercourse with a fellow college student, despite describing his apparent inability to give consent due to heavy intoxication"

to http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/read-amy-schumers-ms-gala-speech.html

Problem is it doesn't say any of that. It just says the speech she gave was inspirational followed by the text of the speech. Nothing about controversy nothing about apparent inability to give consent.

"Reactions to her statement question whether, had the genders been reversed, this incident would be considered rape"

to http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2014/05/wait-a-second-did-amy-schumer-rape-a-guy/

Its better I mean it doesn't strictly support your claim but is Anonymous a reliable source and are their opinions significant enough to mention per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. I think this questionable particularly keeping in mind the Biographies of living persons policy.©Geni (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dayle & Co:

Wow that was hard to read. If you actually read the article, the statement above becomes a transcription of her quote. She does describe his heavy intoxication - to the point of the male being in and out of consciousness - which does legally negate any ability to consent. The controversy sparked then is exemplified in the singular reference following the second sentence, which can also be backed up by several other articles and debates, all of which are a result of the actions carried out by her, in this individual incident. Just some examples from a quick Google search:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thoughtcatalog/wait_a_second_did_amy_schumer_rape_a_guy/ http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1881506-Is-Amy-Schumer-A-Rapist http://rebrn.com/re/amy-schumer-admits-to-raping-a-guy-feminists-support-her-subaskf-64642/ http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=167690221

There are many more sources out there that debate the strong controversy caused by her actions. If the first sentence needs re-wording then that can be arranged, however there are more than enough non-biased, acceptable sources to back this up. However, if you are simply removing this in an attempt to protect her, we'd be highly disappointed but minimally surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayle234 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Forum discussions are not reliable sources for wikipedia, especially for a BLP. Please read WP:BLP. It seems like you are trying to add original research to the article which we're not suppose to do. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, these claims are extremely inflammatory. Unless you have a really top notch RS talking about it, its a big WP:BLP violation. - Galatz^Talk 14:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing an original statement and the given reaction, which are a large part of her current publicity, is unacceptable in this regard, but approved and encouraged on several other notable Wiki pages? Comical, especially since the controversy that has arisen as a result of this incident are well represented in forums, publications and web posts alike. However, since they do not suit a certain public consensus and risk further damaging the image of a celebrity that money is made off online, this particular post becomes inappropriate. Smile, editors, you're now famous too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayle234 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. You are taking her original comments and editorializing on it, which is WP:OR - Galatz^Talk 19:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable facts

Amy Schumer seems to have clearly admitted to having sex with an intoxicated person while she was in college. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the content of http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/read-amy-schumers-ms-gala-speech.html is authentic? Whether or not she actually had sex isn't verifiable, but the fact that she said she did is a fact.

The statement "In 2014 Schumer described having sexual intercourse, in college, with a heavily intoxicated fellow student." is supported by fact.

It is also a verifiable fact that this statement started online controversy. In reddit (and possibly others) and not just in forums dedicated to the so called men's right movement but also forums dedicated to discussing women's issues declared what she did was rape:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/33ufj5/amy_schumers_experience_with_a_drunk_guy_in/

Whereas other publications declared the opposite:

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/05/07/no-amy-schumer-did-not-give-a-speech-celebrating-how-she-raped-a-guy/

Clearly an online controversy occurred as some people very strongly described her behavior one way, while some other people described her behavior in another way.

Is this an important fact about Amy that Wikipedia should cover?

IMO, it is. I think there is value to the community to point out that while Amy wasn't charged with a crime, and many people were OK with her behavior, many other people in our community found the behavior described to be abhorrent. If someone 50 or a 100 years from now stumbles on this article, I think it is important that those future readers know that not all of us were OK with her behavior back in 2014.

So I'd respectfully ask you to revert back Dayle's changes and include them in the article.

NutellaPancake (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I dont think anyone said it cannot be included, the issue is that you dont have any WP:RS. Everything you have listed is not a RS. Find one, source it properly, then it cant actually be discussed. Until you have info that is supported, based on WP's guidelines, there is nothing to discuss. - Galatz^Talk 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

vulture.com is an online publication owned by New York Magazine (see here: http://nymag.com/newyork/aboutus/). It isn't a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutellaPancake (talk • contribs) 20:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The owner does not make it reliable. Kleuske (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The owner of vulture.com also publishes New York magazine, well respected and award winning magazine. Do you honestly that they would be associated with an online publisher (vulture.com) that published the text of Schumer's speech inaccurately? In any case, if you insist that vulture.com is indeed unreliable, I think we should get a mediator involved as I strongly disagree. NutellaPancake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NEWSORG. The owner has nothing to do with what makes it reliable. Organizations have different subs for different purposes. One may meet the criteria of WP:RS while the other does not. I suggest you read WP:RS and come back with a case based off of that rather than the owner as to why you think the source is reliable. - Galatz^Talk 21:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

As you guys are the people removing the change shouldn't you have to come up with proof that vulture.com is not reputable? "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). ", my argument is since vulture.com is associated with a reputable media group, it is a reputable source (just as New York Times Magazine is reputable due to the fact that it is associated with the New York Times). The top portion of the linked article is opinion, however the bottom portion is the Amy's speech as reported by the reporter. If the content of that report was incorrect, Amy would either ask for a retraction or sue for libel.NutellaPancake (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources notice board vulture.com is reliable. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#Vulture.com NutellaPancake (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is while there is a reliable source which publishes a speech where Schumer says she had sex with an intoxicated guy in college, there is NOT a reliable source coming to the conclusion that this was a rape, or concluding her speech was controversial. Only blogs, websites, and social media posts have specifically focused on the part about her having sex with the intoxicated guy and made such comments so far. We'd need a reliable source calling it rape, or saying this part of her speech was controversial, to include this in the article or it's WP:OR (and given this is a sensitive topic a WP:BLP violation). --DynaGirl (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I'm happy at least we're in agreement of the basic fact that vulture.com is reliable.

You're mentioning 'rape' but the editor never called the incident rape. He/she just says in essence, "Schumer says she had sex with an intoxicated guy, some people got upset about that". These two points are verifiable facts, the first part (having said she had sex with an intoxicated guy) we both agree that her speech contains that, the second part (whether or not the comment was controversial) is self evident by the existence of numerous blog posts, forums, editorials, etc. that discuss passionately and in great detail whether or not the action described constitutes as rape.

On a side note, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Amy made up the story to gauge the reaction she would get from the folks that attended the gala that night. They were after all people on the forefront of fighting the so called rape culture, yet the reaction to her comments seem muted. I wouldn't be surprised if Amy came out a couple years from now and admit she made the story up and the lack of reaction shows the sorry state our country is when standing up for those who were victimized. NutellaPancake (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I would consider vulture.com a reliable source for the fact that the speech occurred and we could use it for the vulture.com author, Jennifer Vineyard's commentary on the speech. However, that commentary was not at all what Dayle23 / 86.3.111.87 have been adding to the article. They've been adding that the speech describes an example of non-consensual sex and/or that the speech sparked controversy. Vulture.com describes the speech as inspirational and an example of overcoming a crises of confidence and body-image issues: http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/read-amy-schumers-ms-gala-speech.html We can use vulture.com to say this about the speech. But pulling out a part of the speech that you find significant and using reddit forms etc to say ti's an example of non-consensual sex or that it's controversial is something we cannot do. Reddit and the blogs which call it controversial are not considered reliable sources for wikipedia. They cannot be used to add controversial content to a WP:BLP. In short, stuff you keep calling a "verifiable fact", that this part of her speech was significant and that it was controversial constitutes original research, which is a BLP violation.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, as far as I can tell from reading what is and what isn't reliable, Jennifer Vineyard's opinion that the speech was inspirational might not meet RS requirements (not that I would cause a stink about it, if it was included as such).

I agree with you, if the edit explicitly called the sex non-consensual or rape, I would also remove it from the article and state that shouldn't be included as that is the editor's own opinion. The last last reverted edit however does not do this. It states "At the 2014 Gloria Awards and Gala, Schumer gave a speech in which she claims to have engaged in sexual intercourse with a heavily intoxicated college student.[82] This caused controversy amongst many social network users and bloggers.". You already agreed to the first sentence, let's discuss the second. Your point is that I have to find an article saying "the comment was controversial", I'm saying that self evident facts do not need to be supported by citations. The top of the article calls Schumer an actress and doesn't cite anything. It is self evident that she is indeed an actress. Similarly calling the sky is blue or stating three apples are more than two apples is not original research, those are basic facts. The fact that the comments caused controversy is also a basic fact that we can include in this wikipedia article. If calling it a controversy is too much for you, would you be OK with "... caused significant online discussion in various social media outlets." ? NutellaPancake (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point, there are no reliable sources saying this caused controversy. Your claim that it's "self-evident" based on reddit posts etc is wp:original research, which is major no-no on a WP:BLP. You cannot include this unless you find a wp:reliable source commentator explicitly stating this. Saying Schumer said she had sex with an intoxicated guy in college isn't original research, but at this point we have no reliable source commentator focusing on this part of the speech. It may be wp:undue weight. It's just known because the vulture piece prints the entire text of the speech. The vulture commentator refers to it as a "regrettable sexual encounter". If you want to include more than this, you're going to have to find a reliably sourced commentator who says it, instead of coming to that conclusion on your own or basing it on blogs and reddit. --DynaGirl (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You didn't address the points I brought up, that certain pieces of knowledge is very basic to a point that we all can intuitively understand it without having to have advanced knowledge. The fact that hyperlinks to social media sites exist by itself is evidence that parts of this speech was discussed online. I'm not saying "reddit says it was controversial", I'm saying a discussion in reddit exist, here is the link to the discussion. The fact that I can provide a link is proof that the discussion exist, you can verify the proof by following the link. It is clear that by the content of the discussions that the comment was controversial, but I'll accept that as either 'opinion' or 'research' (by a very broad definition), I will not however accept classifying "... it was discussed online" as original research however.

I plan on editing the article to include the following: "At the 2014 Gloria Awards and Gala, Schumer gave a speech in which she claims to have engaged in sexual intercourse with a heavily intoxicated college student.[link to vulture.com] This comment was discussed widely in various social networking sites.", please let me know if you have further objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutellaPancake (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The objection was already stated in the comment you are responding to. That's your spin on the speech. The reliable source commentator said she gave a speech which described a "regrettable sexual encounter" and this commentator described the speech as inspirational.--DynaGirl (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, @NutellaPancake:, please read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. You're not suppose to restore material removed due to BLP concerns absent consensus. --DynaGirl (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, based on the back and forth conversation we've had, I think it is clear to say we disagree on the level of restrictions the WP:RS and the definition of WP:OR. Before I ask someone to advise us on the correct path forward, I will make a final suggestion in hopes that we can find common ground on our own. I'm not particularly fond of the original text, so this is what I would add instead:

In May 2014, Schumer gave a speech at the Ms. Foundation for Women gala which was described as "intense, [and] inspirational" which touched on her formative years where she struggled with a "crisis of confidence, [and,] body-image issues". In her speech Schumer described a "regrettable sexual encounter" with a fellow student whom she described as "wasted". She described herself during the encounter as "faceless, and nameless" until shortly after when she declared herself as "beautiful", "smart, and worth more than this" and left to room. She continues to say that even though she turned her life around after that ordeal and is now a successful comedienne, she can still be "reduced to that lost college freshman quickly". Whenever she is down due to criticism and she wants to "quit ... being a woman altogether", she can quickly turn those feelings around by saying "I am not laying in that freshman year bed anymore ever again". [link to the vulture article goes here]

Her description of the "regrettable sexual encounter"[link to the vulture article goes here] was controversial and the encounter was widely discussed at the time in various online forums and social media websites. [links to those sites go here]

That is the content I'd like to add to the article. It expresses several facts about Schumer: that she struggled with self esteem and body-image issues and still does. She isn't shy about discussing very personal details of her life. And she's her description of regrettable sexual encounter that was controversial. In my opinion WP:RS is covered by the vulture link, and "calling a spade spade" is not WP:OR. If you disagree, I would appreciate if you come up with suggestions on how to edit the content above (instead of just saying 'no!') so that it would meet your understanding of the [[WP::RS]] and WP:OR requirements.

NutellaPancake (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the correct path forward, when you want to re-add text removed due to BLP concerns is the the BLP noticeboard. There have been multiple editors on this talk page who said including text saying this speech was controversial etc is WP:OR which is a BLP violation, because the only source for this is reddit/social media. Perhaps you can attain consensus from the wider community on WP:BLPN that it's not OR to say this. All that other text regarding body image and "regrettable sexual encounter" doesn't seem to be OR, but may be WP:UNDUE. This speech was pretty much ignored by reliable sources. Apparently, it was only discussed by vulture.com. Giving it attention in the article in probably an example of undue weight. It's not like this speech was like the one where Schumer said "I can catch a dick whenever I want," which got tons of reliably sourced coverage. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In Formation Update

Hi everyone, I'm a student learning Wikipedia for the first time. I thought I should let you know that there is missing information about a recent controversy surrounding Amy Schumer on her parody of Beyonce's music video and song - "Formation" that may interest readers. --Kfsorbara (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2016

Amy Schumer is nominated to the 59th Annual Grammy Awards in two categories, Best Spoken Word Album for The Girl With The Lower Back Tattoo and Best Comedy Album for Live At The Apollo. Sasha Leiva66 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"In the media"

More focus should be given to the allegations (/blatant) of 'joke stealing', rather than a throwaway line in a media section.

78.149.215.16 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

Amy Beth Schumer (born June 1, 1981) is an American stand-up "comedian", writer, actress, and producer. 50.187.55.50 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I think you're unlikely to get consensus for putting scare quotes around the word "comedian". —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Could someone add a hyperlink please?

I recently created an article on Amy Schumer: The Leather Special. Could someone who has extended protection add a hyperlink for that article to her part on television filmography? Agith (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for making the request! —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2017

Can you guys link Amy Schumer: Live at the Apollo in her filmography section. 2602:306:3247:3680:D8DA:6A94:B57F:AB1 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the helpful suggestion! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Amy Schumer. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/Schumer%2Bcounts%2Bsuch%2Blegends%2BCarol%2BBurnett%2BLucille%2BBall%2Bamong%2Binfluences/10001188/story.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/01/05/amy-schumer-instagram-white-house/78332580/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222093417/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/awards/140-mad-max-lead-2015-cfca-awards/ to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/awards/140-mad-max-lead-2015-cfca-awards
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222093417/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/awards/140-mad-max-lead-2015-cfca-awards/ to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/awards/140-mad-max-lead-2015-cfca-awards

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) 09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Plagarism

There is a 28 minute youtube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDxjxVl8S0 which compares jokes between Amy Schumer and multiple comedians. It would be good to add this link.

If there are reliable secondary sources which discuss the video, those could be incorporated (in accordance with WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Due weight policies), but adding the YouTube video alone would violate Wikipedia's policy on WP:No original research and possibly also WP:Copyright, specifically WP:LINKVIO. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Her picture on this page is from 2011??

I know the picture from 2011 is when she is skinny, but let's face it, that's not her anymore (literally looks nothing like her now). Are we seriously not going to update the page's picture after 8 years? Just curious? The page is "semi-locked" otherwise I would have just done it myself.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2018

Hi ActuallyAmySchumer, I've removed the entry you pasted into the talk page (although it's still viewable here) as it was hard to tell where your proposed version differed from the current version of the entry. Would you mind giving us a list of suggested changes instead? That'll make it much easier for editors to have a look, discuss and make any necessary changes. Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

Spelling error: Last line of the "Career" section. Her performance recived acclaim Quasimodonyc (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2018

Change the link to I Feel Pretty in the lead from [[I Feel Pretty]] to [[I Feel Pretty (film)]]. korbnep «talk» 20:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

There is a misprint in the paragraph about Amy Schumer's arrest on 4 October 2018, where one reads "arrrested" with three "r"'s. Andreas Carter (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Rape Allegations section deleted

There are some substantial sexual assault allegations against Schumer presently, but my edit reporting these was removed without any reason given.

A lot of celebrities are currently under fire for sexual assault and harassment allegations, and their pages reflect this. Why has Schumer's page not listed these? PickleG13 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@PickleG13: Cannot see your edit because it was deleted as offensive material. What did you put? Was it supported by a RS? Did it comply with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Shoplifting/Grand Larceny Arrest

Various sources report from her own interviews that Amy Schumer use to shoplift in her younger years and she was arrested at age 21 on Grand Larceny charges. She claims she got off easy because of her perceived relationship with Chuck Schumer. Is it possible to add this info with sources?

I'm thinking of adding the sentences below to the "Early life and background" section, just before the last paragraph:

"At the age of 21, Schumer was arrested for shoplifting on Grand Larceny charges. The charges were subsequently brought down to "disturbing the peace." She has stated she shoplifted numerous times in her teenage years and her surname showing relation to Chuck Schumer was apparently instrumental in getting the charges reduced."

References

PrinceKael (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

How encyclopedic is this information? Happened before she was well known/famous. If there was something saying Chuck directly did something to get charges dropped I'd say it would be more relevant, but if it was just the Cops/Judge/DA/whoever knew about her relation to him, I don't see the point in adding it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Sam Sailor 15:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing TV filmography

She was on season 3 episode 1 in 2019 of No Activity (American TV series) as a fictionalized version of herself. Brownj42 (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit needed

Under personal life, first sentence, "Schumer has dated professional wrestler Nick..." should have the "has" removed. Its not needed. ClevelandExPat (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

keepingabreast

I'm the playwright of the play listed in the article as Keeping Abreast.

I'd like to have the title corrected to keepingabreast. As already corrected, it was off-off Broadway. Performed at Shetler Studios in November 2006. I would also like to have my name added as playwright with an external link to www.jackierosenfeld.com.

It should also be listed under her Stage Experience.

If there is anything else I need to do, please let me know.

Thanks! Jackie

Jackieannrosenfeld (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

No mention of alleged joke stealing or controversies?

--Odoacer Rex (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Amy Schumer's "joke stealing" is quite notorious on the web, but It seems this page has no mention of it. I understand this is under the pretext of preventing vandalism and edit wars which may have occurred in the past and I would like request that a editor with the extended confirmed user access level addresses this absence of key information. Here is some evidence for Amy Schumer's controversial Joke theft: https://www.vox.com/2016/1/27/10839856/amy-schumer-joke-stealing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDxjxVl8S0&ab_channel=BrandonFarley%28MischiefMaker37%29 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/01/21/amy-schumer-denies-stealing-jokes-that-would-be-so-stupid-for-me-to-do-that/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/elliewoodward/people-think-amy-schumer-stole-jokes

• Her alleged joke stealing is mentioned on the page. In fact, it seems to have been there for years now. 49.147.160.162 (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Opie and Anthony appearance?

Amy Schumer appeared on Opie and Anthony radio show in 2014, arguably a springboard for her rise as she received several big appearances shortly after this. This appearance was listed on this page at one point, why was it removed?

The second paragraph is misleading or simply poorly worded. Amy Schumer did not win a Tony A05:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)McPrint (talk)ward but won a Tony Award nomination for Best Actress...McPrint (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti Semitic tagging

Once again, tagging her family as "born to a Jewish family." Wikipedia enables this anti-semitic practice. 2600:1002:B011:C98B:E052:B2E:6773:F3C (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm Jewish. How is saying she was "born to a Jewish family" anti-semetic? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Outdated picture

Maybe it's time to update her main picture? It's 11 years old and does nothing to represent the body positive, vivacious style of Amy in 2022. 216.49.37.233 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)GreenGo

Doesn't matter. UfoTheUfo (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)