Talk:Meryl Streep/Archive 1

Pictures

Can we put the 2012 academy awards picture as main picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlmd.sid (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two pictures on the page are currently identical, but have different captions. Can someone alleviate this and figure out where the picture was actually taken? Davemcarlson 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can we get a more attractive picture for her :)

Just because she doesn't look femme in this picture doesn't mean she doesn't look attractive - I think she looks lovely. Moreso it is a very appropriate picture as it is from an award winning film that she is well known for being part of. Pacian 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i was think that too, except, a lot of her pictures are copy righted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms.Cb.Er.Rock (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the person meant by an "attractive picture" of her is not so much that she doesn't look femme, but in the current profile picture she's wearing sunglasses which obscures half her face. Unless sunglasses are her signature, I don't think the profile picture represents her well. Does she have a Studio publicity photo taken recently or something like that? Mineowyn (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wong

Is there any reason for including the Henry Gummer/Kai Christophe Wong paragraph? I've removed it 3 times now. — Jeandré, 2005-12-27t19:10z

Awards

I think the awards section of actors bio`s look alot tidier in a box, so I `ll get to it

Stevenscollege 12 June 2006

Actor/actress?

She currently holds the record for the most Academy Award nominations of any actress, having been nominated for thirteen Academy Awards since her first nomination in 1979 for The Der.

I have an idea that actor is a better word than actress here because it is gender-neutral, reflecting the fact that Streep has received more nominations than any other actor, male or female. ForDorothy 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One problem. The Academy lists "actor" & "actress" separately. What about "performer"? TREKphiler 04:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actor is not gender neutral,it is Latin Masculine. The correct Feminine would be actrix although in ancient Rome female parts were played by males.94.196.116.117 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the same to Actor as the word is used to represent the whole community of actors (including actresses) as English follows patriarchal framework. It is a gender-neutral word. please read Gender-neutral language --AJ (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Engagement

To establish more of a chronological timeline, might "Streep was engaged to The Deer Hunter co-star John Cazale, who died of bone cancer on March 12th, 1978" be changed to "Streep was engaged to The Deer Hunter co-star John Cazale until his death from bone cancer on March 12th, 1978"? MIP | Talk 16:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be no opposition to this suggestion, I will now make the edit. MIP | Talk 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

I tagged this article because it seemed to praise Ms. Streep ("generally regarded to be greatest actress" etc) without sourcing such non-neutral statements.

How did the undeniably factual statement "She is the most nominated performer in Academy Award history with 13 nominations" (and two wins) not help support that without a source simply stating what appears to be obvious. While saying "the greatest actress" may be a stretch, I think making an adjustment to "one of the greatest actresses" could be made without dispute. Any suggestions? --Bobak 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review

This article is currently listed at Good Article Review. PC78 18:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She speaks Italian perfectly

Vanity Fair italian edition says it...

Opening sentence

I removed "award-winning" from the opening sentence. The first sentence should simply state who or what the subject of the article is. Winning awards is something Streep has done, but it's not who she is. Yes, it's true she's won awards, but it's trying to cast her in a "positive light" and "Award winning" in the opening sentence is a piece of verbal fluff that you expect from a press release, magazine article, or fansite. The awards can of course be put later in the lead, but not the opening sentence. If you look at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#POV in first sentence?, consensus shows that it is bias to put awards in opening sentences (unless it's groundbreaking). Spellcast 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't winning (several?) Academy Awards a critical part of an actor's notability? (i.e. see WP:MOSBIO, notability in header) Mad Jack 07:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. There's nothing wrong with it being in the lead, just not the first sentence. Besides, all her awards are listed in the third sentence, so it's redundant to repeat it. And not to mention the sub-communication in the sentence (look, my favorite actress won 2 Academy Awards!). Anyway, if you think otherwise, you can discuss it on the above talk page. Spellcast 13:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gettin' a date

I understand she's nominated every year but four between 1979-91. What years? Include it? Trekphiler 04:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streep's Jewish ancestor a slave trader?

I have heard that Meryl Streep's jewish ancestor was a slave trader in black africans, is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.207.54 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.245.21.177 (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I didn't know this was a tabloid discussion/chat function. "Hey, is it true that..." Provide documentation, or F.O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.183.106 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Meryl Streep has Jewish ancestry. It that not interesting to know for her fans? Please add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.15.6 (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Ms. Streep was at Dartmouth sometime in the late 60's or early 70's as an imported actress for the not yet fully coed college. Don't know exact dates. Mark S. Tuttle (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Mark S. Tuttle[reply]

Meryl Streep in popular culture

Seinfeld-Seinfeld calls her a phony baloney

He was just bitter because elaine had been "performing" her orgasms. "Well, if it isn't the first lady of the american theatre." 115.128.6.172 (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One example. There are hundreds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.75.157 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another is in the simpsons season 11, last episode. Meryl was shown spitting at the simpsons photo. I actually have proposed her inclusion in that episode's articlew_tanoto (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong

lots and lots and lots of actors have one SAG and oscar and BAFTA and oscars she one of MANY that have one all three awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiegirl (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singing debut

"In the 1990s, Streep took a greater variety of roles, including a strung-out movie actress in a screen adaptation of Carrie Fisher's novel Postcards from the Edge (in which Streep makes her singing debut)..."

This is false. Meryl Streep had her singing debut in Ironweed. Could an editor please make the change?--208.58.202.116 (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she sang in Silkwood which was earlier than Ironweed - she sang Amazing Grace.

Danish accent?

Just curious as to why nobody mentioned her Danish acccent (from Out of Africa) amongst the mention of the Italian and Polish ones she mastered for other films. I think it merits inclusion, though I'd like to see some commentary/sourcing of material of how well she mastered that one, if available. Evixir (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Out of Africa she definitely spoke with a strange accent, but no Dane would recognize the accent as Danish. Maybe fortunately for the film. If she managed to speak English as the Danes do, the Anglophone public would have problems with understanding. Danish is, according to British sources, "a language without consonnants, and with only one vowel the "uh"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.38.142 (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German dialogue with Polish accent removed

Hi I recently added a point on the Meryl Streep artricle about her Polish accent when speaking German in the film Sophie's choice. I see you removed it questioning the source? Yet the preceeding comments stating that she speaks with an Australian or Polish accent are left in. These are also unsourced? But my point is its like asking someone to source she has Blonde hair or is caucasion, or american...Its simply a fact, (a very immpreesive one) that she perfectly imitates the way a Polish person would speak German. I live in Germany, there are many Poles here and I know what I am talking about. what source would you expect for this exactly? And if you remove my comment at least explain the inconsistency in your reasoning why you haven't removed the other comments on her accent which are also unsourced.

I feel strongly that this is am impressive and important highlite of her talent, which is why I feel it should be added to the entry. I Look forward to hearing from you. Regards Navsikand (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion I made asked for a source to add to support what you yourself describe as your observation. That she spoke English using an Australian or German or Polish or whatever accent has been well established in the films themselves, in articles about it, etc. I don't doubt that she spoke German with a perfect Polish accent, and I agree that it was an impressive accomplishment, her talent with accents is quite well known. I think that was the point of asking for a source - since this is an English Wikipedia, the garden variety reader knows that - regarding her English speaking roles. The way it was presented though, is rather an "icing on the cake" item and as thus, a reliably published source confirming it would validate your observation. I'm not saying that the article couldn't use more sourcing, almost any article can, but I think in this case, it would validate the comment extremely well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction needs serious improvement

It mentions one of her TV movies, five of the actors she worked with in her early films, and the names of other actors who are her competition. RIDICULOUS!! Why not mention the films she got Oscar nominations (SILKWOOD, THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, ETC., ETC., ETC., ETC......) for or perhaps her gigantic hits THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA and MAMMA MIA!, ETC., ETC? Seriously, it is not necessary to say "she first appeared in this tv movie" or "she acted with jane fonda, vanessa redgrave, robert deniro, christopher walken" or "angela lansbury and jack nicholson have also been nominated for these awards" it is ridiculous.Excuseme99 (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should be set out in the introduction is specified by WP:LEAD, so you are correct on that score. Four paragraphs covering the salient points is regarded as being the normal maximum. Meanwhile, there has been recent consensus to remove the listing of awards from the infobox and just have an appropriate section in the article, so I've reverted on that basis. Certainly, the lead should summarise her own career, and major (e.g. Oscar-winning) films, rather than her co-stars. Best of luck with the improvements. Rodhull andemu 01:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuseme99, in almost every case, the objections that have been raised with leads you've toyed with have been based on the weight you put on things such as box office and Academy Awards over everything else. Another objection is because you disguise major article changes with deceptive edit summaries that do not in any way indicate the scope of what you've done. An article lead should cover the scope of an actor's work, not just hit the awards. Everytime you change a lead, you push the awards and box office and ignore everything else. A career is more than the sum total of awards and money. A really good example is what Rodhullandemu just reverted. In this case, you didn't even bother to leave an edit summary, you made unsupported statements regarding critical response, statements about "commercial success" which are largely undefined, and adds statements such as "She is widely regarded as the best actress of her generation and one of the best movie actors of the modern era." By whom? These are leads are so full of fluff and so devoid of substance that they are useless, unless they are being written by someone's press agent. It would be so helpful if at some point, you actually try to work with others instead of against them.

I think what is even more troubling is that what you did was revert this article to a version you edited 114 edits and nearly 2 months ago on March 26, 2009. [1] That is totally unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Oh dear. I wasn't aware of that. Excuseme99, you need to take a good look at WP:OWN; our neutrality policy requires that we are detached about things we write about. Please feel free to suggest improvements, but going out on your own limb isn't going to make you many friends here. Rodhull andemu 02:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuseme, you seem to edit a lot of articles that I keep on my watchlist, but I have a large watchlist. I agree with you that the lead is bad. Angela Lansbury and Jack Nicholson don't belong there. It is relevant to mention her debut, but it's not necessary to mention Jane Fonda. You make valid points, and I think you've tried to fix it, but have ended up focussing just on the awards. As per User:Rodhullandemu's suggestion - WP:LEAD covers the requirements. Maybe you should read through some of the lead sections of some featured articles. Maybe even someone like Audrey Hepburn, which has a fairly substantial lead, and try to create a summary of the article rather than a list of accolades. Rossrs (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did not add all the films that she got Oscar nominations for. I said "such as" and listed three. Instead of saying "she worked with so and so in this movie" i made a separate paragraph listing some of her famous costars. Also, it is not necessary to list the other people who have almost recevied as many awards as she. This should work. Excuseme99 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you did was even worse. You wasted an entire paragraph listing other actors with no context whatsoever and yet gripe about listing others with similar nom records and elsewhere, about co-stars in the lead. Just so anyone watching catches what you did:

You removed this paragraph:

"Both critical and commercial success came quickly with roles in The Deer Hunter, with Robert De Niro and John Cazale, and Kramer vs. Kramer, with Dustin Hoffman, the former giving Streep her first Oscar nomination and the latter her first win. Streep's work has earned her two Academy Awards, a Cannes award, two Screen Actors Guild Awards (SAG), three New York Film Critics Circle Awards, four Grammy Award nominations, two Emmy Awards, a BAFTA award, and a Tony Award nomination."

and replaced it with this:

"Streep has performed with highly esteemed actors such as Vanessa Redgrave, Jane Fonda, Robert DeNiro, Christopher Walken, Dustin Hoffman, Kurt Russell, Cher, Robert Redford, Shirley MacLaine, Kevin Bacon, Al Pacino, Clint Eastwood, Diane Keaton, Leonardo DiCaprio, Nicole Kidman, Nicolas Cage, Denzel Washington, Jim Carrey, Anne Hathaway, Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Tom Cruise, Pierce Brosnan, and Steve Martin."

That is simply, to coin a term, crap. (And yes, I'm aware such comments should be avoided, but seriously, does anyone see that as better??) You've been asked, you've been warned, you've been begged to stop editing this way. This is the last time I will deal with bad editing before I take you to WP:AN/I or open a WP:RFC/User regarding you. Stop. Just stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuseme. Did you read WP:LEAD as suggested? Rossrs (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This lead saddens me a lot. I mean, it's a summary of neither the article nor her career or life; it's a summary of awards she has won. I quite understand that though. It's not at all easy to write a decent lead about someone whose work has been consistently praised, and I understand that it's not easy to decide what particular films of her repertoire should be mentioned when practically every other film is notable. But the main problem in my view is that I don't even learn anything about her as a reader. If I wasn't aware of her existence, I would not even know is she's a generally appreciated actor or just someone who is often nominated and awarded. And if I did get the impression that she's talented, I would not be able to figure out why she is regarded as such. I think we have to organise our thoughts before trying to improve the lead. And this better be done first in two sections. The first concluding what we shouldn't mention, and the second, what we should.

What shouldn't be mentioned

Her costars, directors etc.
Award statistics. Is it really important that she's "one of the few actors to have won all four major screen acting awards"? As for her record at the Oscars, I think it's simpler to write something like, "she holds a record for most nominations by an actor at the Academy Awards, with 15, and the Golden Globes, with 23" - not the best wat, but still better I think. I think we can discuss whether or not to keepp her records at Golden Globes, and change it to something like, "Streep has set a number of records..., including 15 Academy Award nominations." The GG can be mentioned in the Awards section. Not everything is for the lead, especially when her GG records are shared with other actors.

What should be mentioned

Image and status.
Why is she considered a great actress? Is it her beauty? Her range of film roles? Persona? Acting style? Diversity? Maybe all of this actually?
What is she known/recognised for as an actress? Her screams, tears, voice, body language? I think her accents ability is quite a considerable factor in the list of her acting skills. I'm sure there are many more such qualities.
As we cannot mention her roles in a particular way. I think it's better to start with: what kind of roles has she mostly played? Dramatic, comic, tragic, biogrphical, historical... Career women, homemakers? If she's played them all, we have to mention it, but we can go a little bit further by asking ourselves: what kind of roles is she best known for playing? And how is she generally presented on screen?
What genres have her films belonged to? What were her biggest successes?
She has sung in a number of her films. And it should be there.
What has theatre work consisted of? Is she as well recognised in thatre?
Has she ever been criticised for something? Maybe her lack of general commercial success? Is she a big film star or a just a fine actress? Or both?

This is just an idea to start thinking and discussing. This is just a draft of my thoughts of how to take this lead one step further. It's not easy, but I think it's possible. What do you guys think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the lead is only supposed to summarize the content of the rest of the article. Unless the article contains information about why she is considered a great actor (which is not really covered to any extent), it can't be used in the lead. In any event, the lead is absolutely not enhanced by replacing actual prose with a paragraph consisting of a stark listing of 24 "esteemed actors" with whom she worked when there is absolutely no context given for any of them. As for listing De Niro, but more importantly John Cazale, Cazale was of very prominent importance because of the relationship she had with him at the time and his immiment death. Unfortunately, the article doesn't include much of any personal life or mention of important relationships, for which Cazale would be prominently mentioned were it present. What the article really needs is relevant expansion before a lead is really written for it. The article body will dictate the lead at that point. No, I don't think the lead is adequate at this point, but its more importantly the main article that needs attention so that the lead can advance. Meanwhile, I really do not think this was in any way an improvement on what was already there, and that is what we've been trying to deal with repeatedly in the last few weeks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid, I give you credit for questioning this. The lead saddens me too. I'm surprised that the overall article is as weak and inconsequential as it is, considering Streep's stature and achievements. I think the main thing to look at in this lead - and in any lead - is to provide a balanced overview of the article. The difficulty here is that the article itself is not balanced, and in my opinion is not a very complete article. Looking at the questions you've asked, I think you've hit on some good points, but your questions are not answered by what is contained in the article. Some of your questions would be difficult to answer in the lead. For example, you ask what types of roles has she played? In my opinion she has played such a wide range of characters and roles, and her films have been of such a varied nature that perhaps the answer to that question would be too complicated for the lead. I think these are great things to be thinking of for the article. I see two ways of dealing with this, assuming that there is agreement that the lead and the article are both lacking. One would be to rework the lead to more accurately reflect the article as it stands, and then the article and the lead could be expanded over time. The second would be to make a concentrated effort to improve the article and then reshape the lead to summarize it. I favour the first option because it would fix the immediate problem. The article is unlikely to be fixed quickly, and it would be a shame to allow the lead to remain in its present format simply because the article requires so much work. I hope this discussion continues. Rossrs (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep adding "She costarred with Fonda and Redgrave, then DeNiro and Walken, then Dustin Hoffman...." none of that info is necessary! and its not necessary either to say "Angela Lansbury and Jack Nicholson have also won this...." or "She was in the play and this TV movie" the only DEBUT necessary for the lead is her film debut. A tv movie debut or play debut is not essential. Also, it helps to include just A FEW of her hits in the intro, i only added three so please don't remove it.Excuseme99 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, nobody keeps adding this information. It's just that each time it's been reverted it has gone back to this version only because it was considered a better starting point. This time I think you have improved the lead section. It's not perfect and it's not complete but I think it's an improvement. I agree with you about some of the names that do not need to be mentioned, and I've already said that. I disagree that the stage or TV debuts/successes shouldn't be mentioned. She's primarily a film actor but not exclusively. So yes, it's an improvement but it's not there yet. Rossrs (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I think it is an improvement. It is more bereft of any content besides a laundry list of awards won with nothing else whatsoever included. I'd really like to know why you're complaining now about some co-stars in the lead after your last effort was to insert a paragraph of 23 names with absolutely no context given them whatsoever. Even more importantly, there is a current discussion regarding the lead and how changes should proceed, which you are ignoring completely until after you make your changes. And you've removed sources that supported what you did bother to keep. There are major issues with your just removing sources for content you've kept. Discuss it here before you make changes or stop making changes when an effort has been made to discuss it. And for the record, whose POV determined what were her "popular films"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be have been discussed here first, but on the other hand, the information exists in the history. The reason I consider this to be an improvement is that the previous version contained 4 paragraphs, and 3 of those were about awards, so it was completely out of balance. Now it contains 2 paragraphs and only 1 dealing specifically with awards. (Well both paragraphs include awards, so it's still a bit award-heavy, but at least there is context and relevance). It is bereft of deeper content, but considering that the previous version was overbloated with discussion of awards, that has been trimmed. The sources didn't reflect the information that was there anyhow. The two sources came after "She has been nominated a record-breaking 23 times for a Golden Globe Award, beating Jack Lemmon, who had 22". The first, USA TODAY, does not discuss her Golden Globes or Jack Lemmon. It discusses a theory that she may be Oscar-nominated for One True Thing and that's about all. The other one to Toronto Star doesn't have an external link. Considering that Streep is contemporary and her activities are pretty well documented, we should be able to link to reliable and accessible sources. Poor form to just remove them without a mention, but they weren't serving a useful purpose. Also it is not acceptable to decide what constitutes popular and that needs to be dealt with. Rossrs (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. I've made a few edits. First, I restored the part of her debut appearances in film, theatre and television, which is a very vital part not only in Streep's career, but the career of every actor. Secondly, I removed the part which lists some of her "popular films", because it's essentially the personal opinion of the editor who added it. Meryl Streep, as it has been pointed out by Rossrs, is an actress who's played a great variety of charater types, and most of her films have been considered successful and popular for her. Listing only 4-5 films seems inappropriate. It's also awkward to jump from Out of Africa (1985) to TBOMC (1995) to TDWP (2006), because it somehow implies she had 10-year and 11-year gaps with no successes, which is obviously not true and even false, and makes the intro look misleading.

I also restored the statement "She is widely regarded one of the most talented and respected movie actors of the modern era." - it's a very relevant and factual statement, and that's how the entire film industry knows her and refers to her, something that must be mentioned in a biographic article about her. It's a very common Wikipedia standard to describe how an actor is perceived. I cited three book sources for this statement in case anyone goes on to question its veracity. These sources are particularly important, because they may help us to expand her article in the future. They include major details about Streep, her acting, her image, what she is known for, what she is not, and so forth.

Opinions, objections? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see it progressing, although it's not there yet. I've been thinking about the Academy Awards. In Streep's case the nominations are notable because there are so many of them, but the wins are not so notable. I say that not to dismiss either of the films or her performances in them, but because she's been nominated or won just about every film acting award in existence. She's been in a large number of films, some critically acclaimed, some commercially successful and some not so. In the overall scope of her incredible career we're mentioning the names of two films only because she won Oscars for them. (Shahid, you made a similar comment to me about naming the two films for which Bette Davis won her Oscars, and you were completely correct. I think this is a similar situation.) We're also confining this period of acclaim to the early part of her career, and yet her reputation has grown since then, despite the fact that she hasn't been awarded any further Oscars. Effectively the summary of her career ends in 1982 with Sophie's Choice. (There are 6 years mentioned in the lead and the most recent is 1982). I don't know how her career could be further summarized without being either exhaustive or selective, but it's something that we need to think about. Following that comes the awards summary. I think the last paragraph summarizes the awards evenly and correctly without a fanfare. It's good.

Another observation - Streep seems to be different to many of the other actors that I've written leads for. I'm trying to think of how it could or should be written, and I'm struggling with it. She is in the unusual position of having started near the top of her craft and has continued on an almost even path ever since. Her acclaim is as regular as clockwork and her successes have been regular. She's never gone through a period of huge success and she's never gone through an obvious decline. Her career has been one of extemely high achievement but it's almost a plateau without the peaks and troughs most performers experience. I think that makes this lead very hard to write. As I said, this is an observation. I hope there is further discussion about this so that we can collectively get it right. Rossrs (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that was an improvement over what was there and reflects progress. I hope it isn't undone in favor of any stark listings of roles out of context. I truly agree that there is no place in leads for the mention of "most popular", "most known for" and similar descriptions relying on the POV of the person adding it. I think Rossrs' suggestions are good, there should be some way of describing a consistently successful career that has always brought acclaim. I, too, have tried to think of better ways to describe her career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for editing

I also think that "most famous" or "most known for" goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV even though there are some performers who based their career on one or two major films/roles and everything else is secondary. You couldn't have a lead for Elizabeth Montgomery that doesn't mention Bewitched and the temptation is to say that she is "most famous" for that. It's true enough, but not "neutral". (Her article uses the equally dangerous "most remembered") It is possible to discuss specific roles and/or films without relying on the "most famous" etc type of description. Streep is not really famous for any particular roles but for the body of her work and for the perception that she is uniquely gifted. I can remember back to the early 80s she was being described in terms that set her apart. There are a couple of ways we could go with this. One would be to mention some of her films. I did this with Judi Dench who is also the recipient of an obscene number of awards and nominations. With Dench, her film career is measurable and her film awards are clustered within a small number of films. I mentioned the films that had drawn multiple award nominations, and if the same was done with Streep we would have something like this. (This is still difficult, but to keep the list down, this is listing films that have achieved nominations from 5 or more notable "award-givers") :

Acclaimed from the beginning of her career, Streep has received multiple awards and nominations for her work in the films, The Deer Hunter (1978), Manhattan (1978), The Seduction of Joe Tynan (1979), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), Sophie's Choice (1982), Silkwood (1983), Out of Africa (1985), A Cry in the Dark (1988), Adaptation. (2002), The Hours (2002), The Devil Wears Prada (2006) and Doubt (2008), and the television mini-series, Angels in America (2003).

(I think this is unwieldy and it skips the 90s only because the films of those periods weren't as widely nominated. Does this work? I think it's not terribly successful but at least the list of films is based on a criteria, even if the criteria is award recognition. Another variation is the Featured article Angelina Jolie which mentions several film titles in context in one paragraph, although the multiple-award-nominated Changeling is not mentioned.)

The other way would be to avoid mentioning roles completely, but for Streep I think that would be less successful, than for example Bette Davis. I think the lead for Bette Davis is fairly successful. There are no film titles mentioned, but Davis had a personality and variable career, so there was plenty to talk about. There's not a lot to say about Streep as a person as her story is all about the films, the roles, the performances and the stature that she has achieved. Looking through her article it is all kind of banal. She did this film, then that film, then this role and etc etc. Nothing jumps out of the article. Rossrs (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may even be of benefit to limit the specific film mentions to ones that only received the absolute major nominations and wins - The Deer Hunter (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), Sophie's Choice (1982), Silkwood (1983), Out of Africa (1985), A Cry in the Dark (1988), The Bridges of Madison County (1995), Adaptation. (2002), The Hours (2002), The Devil Wears Prada (2006) and Doubt (2008), and the television mini-series, Angels in America (2003) - although that is little change. Or perhaps one or two from each decade that received a lot of accolades? Angelina's does need to be updated slightly, neither A Mighty Heart nor Changeling is mentioned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a more balanced selection. It cuts down on the 1970s and adds the 1990s, so that's good. One True Thing and Music of the Heart have pretty much the same nominations as The Bridges of Madison County .... I don't know what to do. It's also interesting that two bona-fide hits have come so recently. Devil Wears Prada and Mamma Mia. Maybe a couple of sentences about the range of her roles could include that she sings in Mamma Mia. Rossrs (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chose Bridges of Madison County over the others mostly based on (maybe my own awareness of) publicity received for the film/box office notices. It was at least a lot bigger film in the US than were the other two. I'd not heard much about either, and never actually seen anything from Music until it ran on broadcast TV a few years ago. That's certainly negotiable. It would be fine to mention her singing role in Mamma Mia, though she's actually sung in other films, this was a musical. (And in passing and a non-sequitur sort of comment, I still do not understand why Angelina Jolie didn't received an Academy Award nomination for A Mighty Heart, she was phenomenal!!) Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bridges was a hit, but One True Thing and Music were "smaller" (maybe) films that didn't attract a lot of attention - although Streep's acting was noted. Doesn't make it any easier but Bridges is the obvious film to mention in that group of 3. As for Streep singing, that's not really the main point to make. I think a paragraph that discusses her versatility - eg her accents/her dramas/comedies/biographies/contemporary settings/historical settings/sympathetic characters/unsympathetic characters/lead roles/supporting roles/part of ensemble - she seems willing to do anything, and Mamma Mia fits there as part of her extensive range. Her Emmy Award winning performance in Holocaust, which I watched recently, is heartbreaking - and this role is more significant to her story than the article would suggest. It plus The Deer Hunter were her springboard, as far as I can tell. (Jarring note - in Holocaust, she's the only one who attempts an accent, so the rest of her German/Jewish family speak with a variety of American accents.) Some of these points are not made very strongly in the article. I think we keep coming back to the problem of trying to write a good and complete lead for an article that is not good and complete. And switch to Angelina. I still haven't seen A Mighty Heart but I loved her performance in Changeling. All I can say is Kate Winslet musta been pretty darn good! I'm sure she was, but jeez couldn't that have waited until next year? Rossrs (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so we bring it back to the original complaint. It's difficult to write a good lead in the absence of in-depth discussion regarding a career like this one. So what we have here are two things. First, a clear discussion of how the lead should be formulated, and secondly, the blueprint for what the article should contain to allow for that lead. Do you agree? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Rossrs (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to assemble source material. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Rossrs (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I totally agree with what Rossrs said about omitting films completely. After all, she's been recognised for every possible film, whether it's Sophie's Choice or BOMC or Mamma Mia!, or even She-Devil and Death Becomes Her. Judi Dench's film career is pretty much restricted in comparison to Streep's one. Every attempt to make a selective list will be our own POV. It's not as easy as it must have been on such articles as Dench or Diane Keaton. For example, you guys forgot The French Lieutenant's Woman which won her a Golden Globe and her only BAFTA. It's difficult not to submit to our own POV with this article. For instance, I personally feel "One True Thing" is more notable than "The Hours", in which her role was relatively small and she shared the screen with two other leading ladies, one of whom got most of the praise. "The Bridges of Madison Country" is more significant than both these films. You know why? Because she's given one of my favourite performances in this film.;) Just kidding, I just try to explain that it's almost impossible to remain neutral. Everything we try to do will end up with "Oh God I don't know what to do..."

Even if we make a list after discussing it to death, there will always be someone who will add more films to this list. I also think lists classify poor writing in their nature, especially in the case of Meryl Streep, whose article will obviously have a very long one.

I believe this lead can be written in the form of Bette Davis's one. There's not much of a coverage on Streep's personal life or media life, I agree, but we can think of some way to form a decent lead. We can do something like, "Streep's film roles have ranged from... to... to...". We can mention what she is appreciated for as an actor. As I mentioned, her talent in accents (Oh I so want her to make an Indian accent one day :)). We can mention that she has played a number of unsympathetic characters, that she's sung in a number of her films. Some of the sources I cited discuss her image brilliantly. Opinions? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your wish comes true one day, Shahid. I'd be interested to hear her with an Indian accent. Your comment reminded me that she did an Australian accent in A Cry in the Dark in which she played the real-life person, Lindy Chamberlain. It's quite a few years since I've seen it, so I just watched a few clips on You Tube to remind me of her performance. While watching, I was thinking that Streep's accent was a fairly authentic Australian but with a touch of New Zealand, and I was thinking it was a strange mixture, and that perhaps she didn't do such a good job after all. Then I looked up Lindy Chamberlain's article, and discovered she was born in New Zealand and moved to Australia as a baby. Her parents would have spoken with a New Zealand accent, so she would have picked up on some of the nuances, so I concluded in my own humble view, that Streep's accent was absolutely right, and my respect for her has deepened. Anyway, this is all my POV and WP:OR, so ... back to business. When I suggested omitting the film titles I was saying that in terms of not mentioning only the Academy Award winning films. I'm undecided about whether films are needed in the lead or not, but I agree with your comment about the difficulty of creating a list that is free of POV. I suppose the fact that User:Wildhartlivie and I came up with two different lists, demonstrates that a universally acceptable list is probably not possible. Let's leave that to decide later. I agree with your other points. I think the key will be in going through whatever material we can find to expand on the article. In my opinion, the article lacks "personality" for want of a better term, and is very dry and static. I believe that expanding it and providing some extra details will give the writing a bit more texture than it currently has, and make it more engaging. Any added depth should help with the lead. Rossrs (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be a great challenge for her to make an Indian accent. There are many different Indian accents, depends on which language you speak. I hope if Streep decides to play an Indian woman one day, she does take it as seriously as she took the Australian accent.

Back to work, agree agree agree. I think you've started a very good expansion. And the list of sources you guys found just makes me happier. Let's discuss the list of films and whether it should be included thing later.:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shahid. One of the things I read about her last night, is that she is annoyed when people compliment her on her accents, because she believes that they are suggesting that she is only concentrating on the mechanics of acting. She comments that the accent is there to give authenticity, but that it is the lesser element. Interesting. There is such a lot of useful and enlightening information out there when you start looking. Yes, I think we should leave the list of films for later. The more I read about her, the more confident I become that we will end up with a very polished article and a suitably polished lead to go with it. Rossrs (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, maybe we could even get a WP:GA out of it??? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not only possible, but I'll dare to say it's likely. Rossrs (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to article

If this article is to receive the benefit of a substantial overhaul, I think it would be helpful to continue boldly editing but giving a bit of a rundown here if there is anything substantial that might be open to question.

this edit - I've intentionally made a big deal about the awards she was nominated for or won in 1979. I think this will allow us to lead into some kind of discussion of the early promise she showed. Even at that early stage, critics were reviewing her as something significant, and it needs to be mentioned. That would be the logical place to introduce some of this commentary. Also, I removed the children. This whole section deals with the 1970s, but it discusses the careers of Streep's children, some of whom weren't even born then. I've removed Sophie's Choice. It belongs in the next section, and I will insert it there. Rossrs (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this edit - added (among other things) some review comments about Still of the Night and Plenty. Neither of the films are particularly notable, but some commentary is needed. Perhaps when commentary is added for some of the more notable films, these could be removed, if necessary. I think Still of the Night is an important part of her story, because there were high expectations that the film would succeed but it kind of failed to deliver. That would need to be cited though. Rossrs (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this edit - discussion of preparation for real life character Karen Silkwood. I do not propose a similar thing for other real-life characters unless there is something unique. Only this one because it was the first, and for now, assuming the preparation is the same in other cases. Rossrs (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this edit - expanding on She-Devil and Death Becomes Her as a change of pace for Streep. There are comments to be added later, that this marked a downturn in Streep's career - unsuccessful comedies, "issue" pictures that failed to find an audience and Streep reaching her forties have been given as reasons for a temporary decline. This is just to begin establishing a frame-work on which to build upon this theme. Rossrs (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this edit - added unsuccessful King Kong audition. It humanizes Streep - not everyone was blown away by her mere presence or her deigning to audition for them. Changed the chronology around the time of Holocaust - timeline is important - accepting the role, filming it, dealing with the reaction - all follows a particular chronology. The death of John Cazale happens right in the middle of her first burst of success, so it's important to get the timeline, and therefore the context, right. Some of her choices were motivated by grief. Also relevant. Rossrs (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this edit - expanded Kramer vs. Kramer. Extraordinary amount of creative freedom offered to Streep at such an early point in her early, countered by Manhattan of the same year, for which she was not even provided a complete script. Rossrs (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cohen

The article makes reference to an older sister of Streep, one Sarah Cohen. Is this for real? I cannot find anything on Cohen, but I find several places that state that Streep is the oldest sibling.
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 00:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revert by editor JeanColumbia answers my question. Thank you very much!

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 18:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children

I would love to learn about Meryl Streep's family & kids. I don't know if this is the place to request for this information but if it is could someone add that to the page. Thank you. Sardaga (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)sardaga[reply]

Yeah, me too. Why no personal life section? There usually is. Could it be that since Streep is so popular fans edit her personal life out of the article?--Timtak (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best actress

i am glad that you have put in peoples comments in the article about her being the best and everything thank you so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.167.252 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meryl Streep Day

i keep getting emails from wikipedia to get rid of it, but its verifiable by a reliable resource. can someone write it better for me so i dont get anymore complaints. anyone with better writing skills will do.

And what is the reliable source, anyway? Who is sending you e-mails from Wikipedia? I see a couple posts to your talk page, reminding you of the editing and sourcing guidelines, which still hold. You've given no attribution to what you are claiming. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004. Whislt Streep was guest appearing on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" promoting Prime the 2005 summer blockbuster. She told DeGeneres and the audience the story of how "Meryl Streep Day" was declared in New York and Manhattan on 27th May 2004 by Mayor Electee at the time Virginia Fields. The story involved Streep recieving a certificate from "Fields" and leaving the ceremony rather boyently by cab, only to be cut off by another woman wanting the same cab. Streep tried to win the cab saying "Woah Woah Woah It's Meryl Streep Day" The woman, after not beleiving it was her, eventually decided to share the cab and paid Streep's fare.

Every year since 2004, Streep's Fans, The Streepers celebreate the event worldwide every 27th of May in various way's. Most popularly on facebook and twitter. Editing photograph's of Streep appropiatly for the event. Cooking food in the hounour of the day, drawing pictures, and writing messages in various styles. The event recently celebrated its 6th Anniversary on 27th May 2010.

Birthdate off by 10 years

Would someone please tell me how Meryl Streep appeared as a child in It's A Wonderful Life" which was realised in 1946 but your article says she wasn't borm until 1949? She used her Christened name in the movie. She is the young girl who at the end of the movie, when a bell on the Christmas Tree rings says:"Teacher says that when a bell rings an angel gets his wings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.58.19 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying she appeared in It's a Wonderful Life? And you know this ... how? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Meryl Streep acknowledged that it was her 60th birthday in 2009, then it is obviously impossible that she was in It's a Wonderful Life in 1946... Jessica A R H (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web Therapy

Im not sure if this is where I should write but could someone please include the three epsiodes Meryl appeared in "Web therapy" as Camilla Bonner a few weeks ago into her credits? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.37.171 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

For an actor like this who has received numerous award nominations and has won numerous major awards, it is an accepted practice to only list the major ones on the article. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

extensive interview on NPR

(Feb 6, 2012) "Meryl Streep: The Fresh Air Interview :: Meryl Streep won a Golden Globe for her performance as Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady. She talks about preparing for that role, her other films and how her perceptions of herself have changed over the years." This link is for the mobile version, maybe someone else can post the regular website if necessary. And there's more than just the audio interview there, with text summary/report and highlights of the 45min. interview. El duderino (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher (2011).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher (2011).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion 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 provide a fair use rationale
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 Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher (2011).jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff y Meryl Streep.jpg

The caption to the picture "Meryl and Jeff Streep at the 1990 Grammy Awards." looks very confusing I think some explanation is given here http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-light/210390803/in/photostream/ May be we could rename it to "Meryl Streep at the 1990 Grammy Awards."? Bor75 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great-grandfather's name

this edit:

Her patrilineal ancestry originates in Loffenau, Germany, from where her second great-grandfather, Gottfried ~~Streeb~~ Streep ...

looks like a good faith "correction" of a typo, but I suspect that Streeb is correct. Certainly a search with Google for Gottfried Streeb finds plenty of relevant references. Could someone knowledgeable on the subject verify this please. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

Why isn't her role of Aunt Josephine in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events listed? 77.77.252.60 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mixed [sic] critics"?

What are "mixed" critics?: "While the film met with mixed [sic] critics, Streep's performance got rave reviews, earning her Best Actress awards at the Golden Globes and the BAFTAs as well as her third win at the 84th Academy Awards.[91][92][93]" This sentence should be recast or the phrase beginning with "While" deleted. Autodidact1 (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

Somebody should add to her filmography the following movies: "Defending Your Life" (1991) and "Rendition" (2007)

Why? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 16:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies and Public Statements

Someone erased the "Public Statements" of this section title. That appears incorrect because some of the content in this section is not very controversial, such as her public statement regarding Margaret Thatcher. Some of her public statements have been controversial, but not all, hence the need to retain both aspects of the title heading. 74.211.12.50 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equalled Michael Caine's and Jack Nicholson's Oscar records?

In the Wikipedia articles for Jack Nicholson and Michael Caine, it states that these two actors were nominated for Oscars across 5 decades in a row, from the 1960s to the 2000s. Meryl Streep has equalled this record, with at least 1 nomination in each decade since the 1970s. Should this be added to the article? Crazy Eddy (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name

An IP keeps adding this. I consider this a WP:BLP issue as no sources have been provided that show Streep has ever used that name (both legally and career-wise). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singer

Regarding this, there's no discussion on Streep's singing abilities in the article let alone any indication she is known for that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sources template

This template isn't needed here. An article in good condition with 130 references and 13 citation needed templates, most of which are placed after uncontroversial statements, such as "Streep won award X" is NOT, as the BLP sources template usage section states, "in need of immediate attention". The citation needed template is for pieces in an article that are unsourced. The BLP sources template implies that the entire article is in dire need of sources, which is not the case. If this was the case, every single BLP that is not good or featured would have the BLP sources template at the top. Please do not re-add the template. Instead, go find sources to fix the issues. G loss 02:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Echoedmyron (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No where is that notion supported by Wiki guidelines. This is a "additional citations needed" template (as it states) not an "unreferenced article" template. It absolutely requires it as the article has a significant amount of statements unsourced throughout, evidenced by the plethora of citation needed tags; Template:Refimprove. Such templates apply to all and any articles that aren't entirely sourced, it's not out to get Meryl Streep's. This article is an article about a living person therefore "BLP sources" template is used, as opposed to "ref improve". It is not my responsibility to "go and find sources" for content in the article, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores material, per WP:PROVEIT. And removing maintenance templates on articles whose noted issues have not been resolved is against Wiki guidelines, as is edit warring.--Lapadite (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Adding 17 more citation needed tags is absolutely the right move here, as well as edit warring by re-adding the template while a discussion had already been opened up about it. Good to have you around. G loss 03:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A level-4 vital article in People.. and it's now flooded with [citation needed] after almost every sentence. G loss 04:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you read up on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed#When_not_to_use_this_template "when not to use this template" from the citation needed template page and revert your changes. G loss 04:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are helpful as they show specifically where the issues are; template without a reason or tags is not much help. This isn't really a contentious issue that needs discussion; I linked to the relevant Wiki articles, which speak for themselves. Any issues here are really issues with the guidelines and should be taken to their respective talk pages. And your attitude towards editors you disagree with leaves much to be desired; surely as a "veteran editor" you don't need to be linked to or reminded of appropriate talk page behavior, civility, or good faith guidelines, as presumably you've read them and, more importantly, practice them. Anyone that wants relevant tags and templates removed can find the sources needed and fix the issues. See Cate Blanchett article for instance; I copy edited the article myself, tagged and placed relevant templates. I will be finding the sources needed, and for any that can't be found the unsourced statements are removed - as you just linked above:

"The {{Citation needed}} template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided...Being specific about the nature of the problem will help other editors correct it...For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}...Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. Do not tag it; immediately remove it. This includes material that is doubtful, harmful, or possibly libelous. For some policy about this, see the sections "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and "Burden of evidence" at Wikipedia:Verifiability."

The reality is, per Verifiability guidelines, that ANY content that could be disputed needs to be sourced or it should be removed. So either the issues are resolved or the statements (one of which is a direct quotation unsourced) are removed.--Lapadite (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LGBT studies

What relevance does this WikiProject have to Meryl Streep? There is nothing LGBT-related in this article.--Lapadite (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lapadite77: Unusually for a WikiProject banner template, {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} has a parameter |explanation= where the addition of the template may be justified. It was added in this edit by Tbhotch (talk · contribs) who used that parameter to give a link to the article "Meryl Streep: Golden girl" See the paragraph beginning "The revival of Streep's career", and the one after it. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, thanks for clarifying. --Lapadite (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One-woman Alice performance

Has anyone else seen or have a copy of Streep's one-woman performance of Alice in Wonderland (not 'Alice at the Palace' this was a one-woman performance), which I saw by accident on a PBS station long ago, and later learned was her college thesis? I've only seen it once, it was the best television show I've ever seen (or at least how my memory of it works), and I'd both love to find it and add it to pages here (main page, Alice in Wonderland in film and television, Streep filmography, etc.). If you haven't seen it, please join the search - it's well worth it. My PBS contact told me about the film/tape, but nobody has a record of a copy or adequate data on how to find it without contacting Streep herself. Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:07 31 March, 2015 (UTC)

Bumping this for possible comment. Editors and others who enjoy Streep's acting really should see this performance, and at a minimum it should be mentioned on the page (on a quick look I haven't seen it there). Randy Kryn 13:00 14 April, 2015

Has anyone who works on this page seen this performance? No, I wasn't dreaming, it's an actual videotape and it's "magnificent" (to quote the Seinfeld show). Randy Kryn 13:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Meryl Streep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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. —cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]