Jump to content

Talk:Whoopi Goldberg/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

favorite charities/foundations

does anyone know what favorite charities/foundations she gives to regularly? in alaska wondering. 216.67.30.103 05:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Too Favorable

What? Nothing of her getting drunk and saying crude remarks about the president? We wouldn't want to show her weaknesses, now would we?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.6.85.172 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Birthplace

What, exactly, is "the Jewish part of New York"? A Jewish neighborhood, maybe? Which one? WilliamBarrett 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Heroin

Is she a heroin addict? The list of heroin addicts indicates such, but there is no mention in this article.

If the article doesn't metion it, and neither does ;ist of known opiate addicts, then I doubt it. However, BBC and here state that she was. Iolakana•T 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'have gas'

Well, the part about why she uses that very stage name reads fairly funny, but I assume 'have gas' is not appropriate for Wikipedia? I'm no English native speaker, but I really do think it is a bit too vulgar. What do you guys think? -andy 80.129.98.149 19:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's the reason she gives, it's fine for the article. Truth, or at least a citable claim, trumps concerns about vulgarity. --Zippy 11:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

eyebrows, what's the story?

I've never seen a photo of Goldberg where she has eyebrows. What's the story -- does she have some medical condition, or is this a really extreme case of face waxing? --Zippy 00:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the latter, in fact she sometimes does have eyebrows, sometimes not. Maybe it's how she likes it? I know several women who shave their eyebrows off. It's an ongoing debate that I'm sure she finds amusing, in the end who cares? Zerbey 05:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I tried to find a photo of her with eyebrows and failed. --Zippy 11:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
She says they're her trademark. Michael 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I finally found a photo of Goldberg with eyebrows. She had them in the 1985 movie The Color Purple. --Zippy 18:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless that was just makeup for the movie. Macduff 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering why her lack of eyebrows is in the Media Appearances section. Itsmeiam 06:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiracial? Erm...no

Though Whoopi claims to be of mixed heritage in her autobiography (black, white, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, alien princess...), a DNA test shown on African American Lives, last February (2006) revealed that Whoopi is, in actuality, over 90% African decent.

http://newyorkmetro.com/arts/tv/reviews/15623/ http://racerelations.about.com/od/ahistoricalviewofrace/a/dnaandrace.htm

92% from the New York Metro link (though what does it mean to be X% European, Y% African?). In any event, taking the test as an accurate measure of the percentages of different ethnic groups, 1) she's at least 8% something other than African, and 2) one's Jewish ancestry is not necessarily identifiable in DNA (similarly, one's ancestors believing in Christ, Mohammed, or no deity at all, would not necessarily show or be measureable). --Zippy 05:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
92% of one dominant race does NOT make a person mixed. Not even a little bit. If that were the case, then MOST American blacks (especially with southern heritage) would be classified as mixed.
In her autobio - which is sitting on my desk - Whoopi made a BIG DEAL about her so-called mixed heritage, which is all but completely debunked. How is someone 2% Chinese again? .5% Jewish? Sorry, Whoopi - I know you wanted to have something in common with all your white lovers, but race ain't it. (And I LOVE Whoopi.) Geez, it's time for us black folk to put that "Great-granny was a Cherokee princess" sh*t to rest. Rattlerbrat 14:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Who cares?? She is a highly multitalented, funny woman whose work speaks for itself. By they way, what is the cut-off point for declaring who is "mixed" or not?? Who comes up with these "percentages?"" Since if two randomly-selected individuals from different "racial" groups were to be tested for genetic similarities, they would more likely have more genes in common with the person from the OTHER "race," then these "percentages" become even more ridiculous. I do agree about with the point that blacks as a group need to stop taking it as badge of extra pride for having non-African ancestry. Most blacks have multiracial heritage (which makes them technically mixed), and that's neither good nor bad, just a fact (but biologically, its best to be a mutt than a purebreed!) 11 March 2006 Kemet.
Oh, we do NOT. Is this what they teach in public schools? I'm not too sure what the cut-off is for multiracial, but NINETY-TWO PERCENT of one race is an overwhelming majority in one's blood line. This is why all blacks here at Wikipedia are NOT listed as multiracial heritage. Thanks for the laugh, though. Jennifer 04:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It can be true depending on how you define multiracial. American blacks on average have only about 20% white ancestry (far from "mulatto"). And people like Kemet love using that fact to prove some sort of point against mixed-race identity. - 72.81.251.133 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
best to be a mutt than a purebreed?...in animals, like dogs, purebreds tend to be inbred. so no, humans of mixed ethnicities are not hardier than "purebreeds." also, it is quite possible that whoopi goldberg is recently descended from Chinese or Jewish ancestors without it showing up in her genes. example: let's say, somehow, a woman is absolutely 50% chinese and 50% african, genetically speaking. she marries a man who is somehow 100% genetically african. their kids are not necessarily 25% chinese by genes...when half of the woman's genes are selected for the zygotes, it's not like her body somehow "knows" it must select precisely half of the chinese genes and half of the african genes. so she very well might have made a big deal about it because her Chinese and Jewish ancestors played a large role in her life, she's not necessarily exagerrating it just because the tests say she's 92% african, genetically. Theconroy 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • um, we did these types of tests in an undergraduate biochem lab once, you realize they're not tests to see what race you are, they just type them against the most common allelic profiles, in most cases they use ethnic groups as a baseline/control, but it's hardly a test of ethnicity, just genetics--152.163.100.8 00:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Must be an American thing this, the desparate need to define OTHER PEOPLE's ethnicity. She is of mixed descent to some degree, and if she views herself in that light, that her right. It's her identity and no-one else has the right to say that's wrong. --Indisciplined 22:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kemet: It's pretty obvious that some people are more "multiracial" than others. Just because there's a gray area doesn't mean that everyone or nobody is. And what makes you think that she thinks she's "better" for having non-black ancestry? For the record, I agree that 92% is far above the cut-off, and it would be ridiculous, IMO, for Whoopi to go around saying that she's mixed race, especially given her physical appearance. Still, I agree with Indisciplined - she should be able to identify herself as whatever she wants. Just leave her alone. (By the way, it does seem to be an American problem, but mostly with black Americans themselves. As you can tell, many blacks here take issue with blacks who mention that they are X% of any other race. Even if Whoopi were 50% non-black, people like Rattlerbrat and Kemet would still probably complain.) - 72.81.251.133 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why She Picked Goldberg...

Whoopi used to say that she picked the name "Goldberg" so she could break into the supposedly Jewish entertainment network...Jewish comedy club owners would hire her based on her name, et cetera.

I get the impression that, for obvious reasons, she no longer emphasizes this point, now. Does anyone have documentation for it, so it could be included in the article? I am not willing to add it without citation. --209.33.24.118 22:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw her say this on TV in the late eighties...anyone know a specific reference? --Kaz 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In the article, please mention how / why she changed(?) her name. Jidanni (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Age

[1] and [2] says she's born 1955.

This page has it at 1950 http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/gol0bio-1 ka1iban 01:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Most reliable sources say 1949.

atheist?

NNDB says she is an atheist.[3] Is that alone a reliable source? — coelacan talk — 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Although it's not a reliable source, [4] says so as well. I wouldn't trust that source, though, since it says Liam Gallagher's an atheist and I'm pretty sure he's Roman Catholic. I can't find anything else on her being an atheist, though, so I'd take that with a grain of salt. 1ne 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure about Liam. He's got some interesting quotes. — coelacan talk — 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maxim (the actual numbers)

Truth be told, there were eleven names on the list of worst comedians, since the Gallagher brothers were listed together. Of the eleven, 8 were white, 2 were black, and one was asian; hardly racist. Of the eleven, 6 were female, and 5 were male. Sexist? Perhaps, but not overwhelmingly so, especially for a men's magazine. The Reel World 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway. This trivia piece does not adhere to WP:LIVING so I'm taking it out. It's malicious POV, so in order to stay it would have to be super-relevant, and it's just not. It's gone. — coelacan talk — 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone complained that I had not waited for consensus before removing this. We don't wait for consensus when it is a damaging statement on a living person. Read WP:LIVING. This is damaging, so it must be cited and highly relevant. Even if it were cited, it's not relevant. What one readers' poll of one magazine decided about Whoopi is not a notable contribution to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to step in to the middle of a discussion here, but my reading of WP:LIVING is that the Maxim cite is acceptable. With respect to POV, it would be a POV violation for the wikipedia article to state "Whoopi Goldberg is the worst comedian ever", but it it acceptable to say "A Maxim poll rated Whoopi Goldberg as the worst comedian ever." The former is an opinion (and thus has a point of view, violating POV), the latter is a fact and expresses no viewpoint (especially in the context of the rest of the article, which does not focus on this poll and instead cites many, many positive awards, polls, and work). --Zippy 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence on the Maxim site that the article is a "reader poll". It's just a piece trashing comedians. --George100 11:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I just read the Maxim article on-line, and I agree. Not a poll, not particularly interesting. --Zippy 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Academy Award and Oscar winner?

That's one heck of an accomplishment considering it's the same thing.  ;-) I deleted Oscar. --Atomicskier 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm realizing that many of the more blatantly POV statements in this overly celebratory article have already been tagged by Template:Fact markers. Deleting a lot of the unsourced/POV material would improve the article.

"After receiving kudos from Spielberg, Walker, and music consultant Quincy Jones, Goldberg became an overnight Hollywood sensation. The Color Purple was released in the winter of 1985 and was an instant critical and commercial success. It was later nominated for 11 Academy Awards including a nomination for Goldberg as Best Leading Actress. Although the movie came away with no awards, still one of the biggest upsets in history, Whoopi's performance was highly regarded."

The term non-specific terms "slew" or "host" of awards appear more than once. The only tone-netural statements in the article appear to be endless catalogues of the box office results and award status of every project she's ever worked--the overall point of the article seems to be "success after success after success," almost like a résumé or advertisement. I don't think a rambling list of accomplishments interspersed with awkward expressions of gushing praise make for useful encyclopedia article. Many of the accomplishments listed--for example, the number of award nominations given to movies she merely appeared in--have very little to do with Whoopi herself.

I could be wrong in interpreting the article this way. Before I start deleting what seems to me rather silly content, I want to get some more opinions.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to some removal of PR puffery (I like that phrase, where'd you pick it up?) but I have one major request: please try to do it in small increments so it's easy to see what you've changed. If at all possible, avoid those newline and whitespace changes that cause large chunks of text to appear red in diffs even though nothing actually changed (if you don't know what I mean, let me know and I'll go find some example diffs). Minor requests: in deleting content, try to limit deletion of facts to those that are repeated multiple times (remember that per WP:LEAD, the intro section has to summarize the rest of the article, so anthing in the lead should be repeated later at least once. You removed content here that I replaced here; that's an example of what I mean. One other editor put some fine-toothed work into this article recently, Slater79, who I will invite to oversee as well. Beyond that, I've got no other initial concerns, and I see some WP:PEACOCKery that I'm going to start taking out, myself. — coelacan talk — 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I jumped in and removed some of the obviously POV statements, and tagged many with "[citation needed] " that could be neutral, but need supporting cites (ex: "during this period, Goldberg became a drug addict.") --Zippy 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How high?

I've heard Whoopi made third most movies in '90s. How many films was it in all, & how much did they gross? (FYI, she trailed Samuel L. Jackson {36 & US$1.7 billion} & Harvey Keitel {30 & US$709 million}). Trekphiler 08:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

what is her favorite charities?

wondering in alaska —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.30.103 (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Death

Currently 18/03/07 is says she died, is that true? 

I don't think so. Her death is no longer on her biography. Someone must have deleted it. CureHeart 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish??

It say in the references at the bottom of the article that she is Jewish? Is this true? I mean her real name isn't Goldberg and if this is the only reason to say that she's Jewish surely it's incorrect?? Can someone clear this mystery up?Yakface 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Is she Silverstein or Johnson by birth?

According to Imdb her real name is Johnson by birth. I have much doubts about the 'raised by a rabbi' story Paul210 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Paul,

I wonder who wrote all that stuff in the Wiki bio about Whoopi's Jewish background? I'm puzzled about it. I remember her being interviewed on TV (with Barbara Walters I think) & said her real name was Caryn Johnson & that she was raised a Roman Catholic. All that Jewish stuff sounds suspicious. If she was really Jewish, I think Barbara Walters would have mentioned it.

Sincerely,

Sherry

Ben Hur?

This page's filmography currently claims that Whoopi Goldberg appeared in Ben Hur. Unless she appeared as a four-year old extra, which I somehow doubt, this claim would appear to be somewhat dubious. MarkB79 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion info

I've removed this (long uncited) info about her religious background, if anyone can source it to a good source please restore: "Although her mother was a Protestant preacher, Goldberg says that her family is of mixed religious heritage — including Buddhist and Jewish traditions, hailing from a "West Indian" immigrant community. Although she has a religious family heritage, she has said she does not really consider herself in any religious denomination. She chose the surname "Goldberg" after her mother pointed out that her initial name pick was not Jewish enough to make her rich." All Hallow's Wraith 09:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts

Im not positive, but i believe her voice is featured in the video game kingdom hearts 2 (the hyena from lion king). There really isnt a specific place to add it in the article, but i thought id mention it here. Evaunit666 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Billy Connolly

According to the man himself, Billy Connolly thanks Goldberg for being the reason he became popular in the US. Apparently she got him a gig with an influential audience at some comedy show. I saw it on one of his biographical DVDs. Anyone else know about this? Kansaikiwi (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Zomputer (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Godmother of a cruise ship?

"Goldberg is the godmother of the Royal Caribbean International cruise ship Serenade of the Seas, and is currently a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador."

I have no idea if this is true. But I have never heard of being "godmother of a cruise ship". So, if it is true, it should be explained. Otherwise, it should be removed.-69.87.201.48 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Radio show cancelled in March 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_Up_With_Whoopi References to Whoopi as "radio DJ" should now be deleted (at least in the present tense) as the radio show was cancelled. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

addiction?

is she addicted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.74.64.220 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How many films?

I don't believe she "starred in over 150 films", at least not according to imdb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.241.225 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 150 films ounds impossible. It takes a long time to make a movie. Zomputer (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jewish?

Where does the article cite that Whoopi is Jewish? I don't think she is. -- kosboot (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously she is not jew.

Is Whoopi married to the guy from Cheers? You know, the one who did black face?

Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.34.45 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Ted Danson is married to Mary Steenburgen. Danson and Goldberg didn't last long; they broke up about 20 years ago. Nightscream (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I missed it she was also voice of GAIA on Captain Planet

Not sure if I missed it she was also voice of GAIA on Captain Planet. CaribDigita (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sesame Street

Whoopi Goldberg allegedly talked to Elmo about skin textures and colors in Sesame street :) See List of guest stars on Sesame Street for more info :) // Ge6m09 - troubled waters 12:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More matter

I am not an expert on Whoopi, but can someone add more content to the official page. There is very little text about her accomplishments--only a large review. Clearly she should be more than just catalogued. Thanks.

Didn't see any mention of the movie Ghost in her accomplishments... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.27.151 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Halle Berry?

Didn't Halle Berry win an Oscar for Monster's Ball? If so, then the Academy Award language needs to be updated.


Whoopi won an Academy Award for Supporting Actress. Halle won for Best Actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.163.189 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Snow Buddies?

Woopi was in snow buddies doing a voice over of Miss Mittens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanpage19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Moon landing

I believe it was on The View in July where Whoopi said that she enjoys questioning whether the landing happened. She did state that she never said that she did not believe that the moon landing was a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.184.135 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that saw the clip knows that Whoopi Goldberg was indeed expressing doubt about the "official" version of the moon landing, i.e., that maybe it was faked. She did the same thing a few years ago with 9/11. In both cases, she quickly backtracked after criticism, doubtless to blunt the growing perception that she's basically crazy; which, of course, is basically true. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek

Did Whoopi Goldberg have a falling out with Paramount? She didn't have a part in the last couple Star Trek movies. Does anyone know if she might do more in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

She was in Star Trek: Nemesis. Powers T 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoopi announced that she would no longer act in movies. Guess she kept her word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.163.189 (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

She's not a Jew

I removed the Jewish... categories. Caryn Johnson (stage name Whoopi Goldberg) is not a Jew:

  • she has no proven Jewish ancestors, her ancestors are predominantly Papel and Bayote (Guinea-Bissau).
  • describing her as biracial when she is in fact at least 92 % sub-Saharan African (more than the average African American) is only ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iglomitak (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • there is no proof that she ever converted to Judaism or is a member of a synagogue, or a practicing Jew in any way
  • her previous self-description as "Jewish-Catholic" is contradictory and meaningless. You cannot be both Jewish and Catholic at the same time.
  • she has also stated that she doesn't "believe in man-made religions", i.e. she doesn't believe in "man-made" Judaism = she is not a Jew.

Conclusion: She is a confused Black woman of Papel and Bayote ancestry, who for some odd reason (it reminds me of Idi Amin's strange fascination for Scotland) pretends to have a Jewish background, despite the fact that she does not. Of course she would have been a Jew if she had converted to Judaism, but apparently she never did. Iglomitak (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC) 

I just noticed this previous discussion, which offers a more plausible explanation for why she pretends to be Jewish by using a German, Jewish-sounding name. Iglomitak (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You can be Jewish and Catholic at the same time... It's called Jewish Ethnicity. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That's rubbish. Judaism is a religion. And Catholicism is not an ethnicity, just forget it. Iglomitak (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Both are religions, but Jewish is also an ethnicity. If a Jew converts to catholicism, he'd be catholic in religion but still Jewish by ethnicity. But more to the point, why is there nothing in the article about her birth, family, where she grew up, and so on? Chrisrus (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The book In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. goes over Goldberg's ancestry at length (it includes both genealogical research on Gates' part, and Goldberg's own recollections of what she knows about her background). All of her traceable ancestry back into the 19th century is African-American - she has no traceable Jewish ancestry (or any other caucasian ancestry that Gates is certain about, just a DNA test that showed her to be 8% European). Her quotes from the early 1990s seem like jokes rather than serious claims, especially considering what she says/what is traced in the 2009 book. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You can be a Jewish Catholic. It refers to Jewish Ethnicity and Roman Catholic religion. A lot of people self-identify as Jewish-Catholic. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC) EDIT: As to whether she is Jewish or not, I think it's clear that she isn't based on the genetic testing and her later statements. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT

Why is she in the LGBT project and category? These are nothing but rumors. There are clips on YouTube where she literally says "I'm not gay" like 10 times on The View. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.150.187.117 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Zomputer (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good point. What's up with that? Chrisrus (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
She has been an activist for gay marriage for awhile now, so being in the project is correct. However, why she was ever in the category as being gay, I don't know, but it's not correct. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This Article Sucks

The article history only goes back to summer 2009, but it reads like an article which has been gutted by members of Goldberg's personal entourage and turned into borderline hagiography using the usual combination of edit wars and BLP bs. There are a herd of elephants in the room being willfully ignored.

The intro, apparently written by Goldberg's publicist, is about two paragraphs too long.

There's no info on her early life. Who were her folks? How was she raised? How did she get into comedy?

She's first and foremost a comic, and it's barely mentioned. According to the article, she spontaneously appeared on the earth in her mid-twenties to star in "Citizen: I'm Not Losing My Mind, I'm Giving It Away". She never would have gotten that job if she hadn't already been a very well established stand-up! Why has that been excised? Is being a successful comic something to be ashamed of? Is having had numerous HBO comedy specials something she wants swept under the rug?

The article pretends that she is primarily not a comic, but a high caliber actress who has only made masterpieces of cinema in which she has given brilliant performances. In fact (and I say this without malice), most of her movies are stinking turd hack comedies. Theodore Rex, for example, was one film history's more notorious flops. She tried to sue for the privilege of not starring in it, but lost. Why is this not mentioned? Again, why is the fact that she's a comic so obscured by bullshit?


There's no mention of how, when, or why she chose her brazenly off-beat and off-color stage name.

There's no mention whatsoever of her infamous affair with Ted Danson.

What the sam hell happened to her eyebrows? Why does she like white guys so much? What's her beef with Spike Lee? This and more, the world wants to know, damn it!

Instead, this jaw-cracking yawn of an article consists almost entirely of a laundry list of acting awards and honors. What's so annoying about this is that I am not by any stretch a Whoopie Goldberg expert, or even a fan. I came here curious about learning more about her, and found that even with my limited knowledge of her, I can easily spot gaping holes in her biography! It stinks of protectionist censorship and makes me wonder what else has been cut out or white washed that I have no inkling of.

This is another one of those articles which makes me mistrust Wikipedia as a source of reliable information. This article is a black-eye for Wikipedia.75.84.122.117 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, pal, are you familiar with the concept of a volunteer project? You're getting this article for free, and you get what you pay for. If you don't like something about it, find some sources and jump in; you know as much about the lady as we do. Powers T 12:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with some of the critisisms about this article. There is no mention re her career as a brilliant stand-up comic. I watched her several times early on-stage and she gave me cramps on my sides and tears in my eyes with her brilliance as a stand-up. Whassup wit this obvious omission? Dcrasno (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

button collecting?

Hi,
I've heard that WG collects buttons. If so, I'd like to list her on the button collecting entry.
Any help much appreciated. Thanks.--TyrS (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you Googled it? Let us know what you find. Chrisrus (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dyslexia and Dropping Out of High School at Age of 17

_Where is it? __Some people may come here for biographical material. ___Wouldn't you want this website to be taken seriously? ____Less kiddie porn and more useful info please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.248.172 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Polanski Support

Worth mentioning her support as part of the campaign to keep Roman Polanski from being extradited? Chebbs (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Most important missing info: Why she has no eyebrows?

I came on Wikipedia specifically to answer this question and was shocked to find no mention of it in the article on her.

There are rumours floating around the internet that:

  1. She shaves them off
  2. She has no hair of any kind, and wears a wig
  3. She has a rare disorder called Alopecia
  4. That they got blown off in the wind
  5. And many others.

For wikipedia to not even mention that many would like to know the answer, that there are rumours, that no one knows, or perhaps if she's been asked in interviews, what she's said etc.

She's a great actress, but seriously, I noticed when I was a kid, and am still wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.48.150 (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Abortions

This article claims that she had 6 (or 7) abortions between the ages of 14 and 25. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.221.88 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Does Whoopi Have Even a High School Diploma?

Whoopi's formal education, or lack thereof, is germane because she portrays herself as a sort of deep thinker on domestic and foreign policy, the direction of the country, serious policy issues, and so on. So did she even finish high school? This is a basic biographical question.

Maxim Magazine experts On comedy?

Since when did the people on Maxim magazine and its readers become a viable source on comedy commentary? Its like Hustler or Playboy or Sports Illustrated writers and readers being experts on comedy.

I find it odd tooZomputer (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
a more relevant magazine is neededZomputer (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Paulf113, 18 February 2011: Activism

{{edit semi-protected}}

Recently a site called Stop the Choddy poked fun at the formulaic commercials, dubbed “Choddies”, in which Goldberg frequently appears representing various non-profit organizations. She has been in so many of them that the site named her as a criterion that constitutes a Choddy, along with Waist-Up Framing, Simple Background, and others.[1]

Paulf113 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not in the business of promoting people's websites - unless the website is somehow notable, and this website ain't it. Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
notability is the issueZomputer (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

I don't know what the rules are for this, but shouldn't her fervent support of Roman Polanski be mentioned in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.157.32 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If we add that, wouldn't we also have to add every opiinon she has ever expressed on any notable person since appearing on The View? And would we have to put the other hosts view of Roman Polanski on each of their pages? It just doesn't seem notable enough. It might be notable enough to list her among people who have spoken out in support of him on his article. If it's too big, (which I doubt, because how much "support" could there have been for such a slimeball?) you could, in my humble opion, create a sub-article to Roman Polanski called List of prominent individuals who have supported Roman Polanski, or even a catagory. There might be some "rules" that come into play, probably starting with WP:Biographies of Living People which state that nothing with a whiff of slander is permissable and to always err on the side of caution with these things. If Shfamous McNotable once said "I know the fellow very well and I can't belive he would be capable of committing such a crime, so I believe him innocent", you could call him "a notable Polanski supporter", but just having said that once and not having sat through everything the jury did and having done all the work of a jurer, it just wouldn't seem fair to me to treat an off-the-cuff remark to one person one time a long time ago would qualify so labling McNotable for all time. He might have looked into the case since and changed his mind or not looked into it and therefore not be qualified to judge. Why, was what she said about him a major incident? Chrisrus (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your right. I didn't think about it like that. By the way I figured I would answer you're question about Roman Polanski supporters. A petition was sent around hollywood saying that he should be allowed to return to the country, because he is a great director. There were 142 people who signed this petition. Thanks again for you help with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.214 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lied about her age

I don't have a good enough source, but it's well known that Whoopi lied about her age to appear older. Some people still believe she was born in 1950.

http://www.virginmedia.com/homefamily/health/celebs-who-lie-about-age.php?ssid=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snookumz (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sister Act in Germany

Sister Act is performed in Hamburg in Germany atm. And Whoopie Goldberg is Coproducer. http://www.stage-entertainment.de/musicals/sister-act/artists/kreativteam.html --90.23.37.73 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to note that Whoopi Goldberg's 3 year stay in communist East Germany (1979-1981) has been omitted. This is a central portion of her life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.100.195 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.66.145.73, 10 July 2011

Addition to the entry on Whoopi Goldberg: On July 9, 2011, Whoopi Goldberg performed as Master of Ceremonies for "A Talk for World Peace" with the Dalai Lama, on the West Lawn of the Capitol in Washington, DC.

See: ABC 7 NEWS: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/07/the-dalai-lama-gives-marriage-advice-to-d-c-crowd-on-capitol-hill-63427.html 173.66.145.73 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Declined. That appearance is not notable. It was not even substantial to the visit. -DePiep (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


why has no one mentioned her lack of eyebrows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.239.132 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed? Here it is.

The First Black woman to win the Oscar was Hattie MacDaniel in 1939 for her portrayal of Mammy in Gone With the Wind. As for the question about Ms. Goldberg's education, the author should understand that education does not egal intelligence nor is it a prerequisite for Having an opinion. Just for a little perspective you should realize that our founding fathers had what ,today, would not even be the equivalent of a high school education and much of what they did learn was wrong, and yet they managed to form and run this country. The fact that someone does not have a college degree does not preclude them from making a contibution to our society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.131.175 (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the Oscar History page lists her win, but does not specify that she was the first black actress to win in 50 years and the 2nd black actress to win ever. http://oscar.go.com/oscar-history/year/1991 Unfortunately I could not get this page's search engine to work and find out if this milestone is noted.
But if you need a citation that specifically says that, will Jet Magazine do? http://books.google.com/books?id=B5oDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=history+of+the+oscars+whoopi+goldberg+2nd+black+actress&source=bl&ots=8QSD63g9pp&sig=VI7MYZDGkItwZRgfJ225ca2H6OI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Juv-ULuWFJKK9QSAtIDICQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20the%20oscars%20whoopi%20goldberg%202nd%20black%20actress&f=false
I can't insert these citations since the page is protected. History Lunatic (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

Phobia?

Over in today's DYK article Choke_(Glee) it mentions Goldberg does not fly. (She took a bus from NYC to LA) I believe I've heard that elsewhere. Yet here mentions London and East Germany which wasn't reached by boat. Feels curious that no reference is mentioned here. It is a rather interesting facet, yes? 24.28.17.231 (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was a socialist country not a communist country. You should correct that. 78.34.244.248 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation (reference number 25 at present) for the sentence starting; "Goldberg later clarified that she had intended to highlight the exact charge" Doesn't appear to lead anywhere but to a main page. Article doesn't appear to be there anymore and redirects.121.73.221.187 (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Fix the template

Someone either vandalized it or something, because the top of the page is numeral nonsense and her picture is gone. --Matt723star (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ms. Goldberg's Birth Date Error

I noticed that Whoopi Goldberg's birth date had been changed to 1949, but if, as the article stated, she was 18 in 1973 (when she gave birth to her daughter), she would have to have been born in 1955, not 1949 (she would have been 24). I have corrected her birth date to 1955 in the info box and in the article. - Qdiderot (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree in your analysis. IMDB also has her birth listed as 1955.[2] Stevencrader (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
See WP:RS/IMDB. We need reliable sources. Materialscientist (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that IMDB may not be the most reliable, but it is odd that Wikipedia list a different year than the rest of the web. I am going to list a number of sites that I have found that list the year as 1955. If one is reliable enough for you, please update the page Biography.com, Fandango.com, History.com, and TVGuide.com. Wikipedia needs to get the information correct and I believe it is currently incorrect with the year 1949. --Stevencrader (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Main picture caption

The caption says "Goldberg at a Bob Marley fancy dress competition in New York City, 2008." when clearly the zoomed out version of the same picture under 'Other media appearances' has the caption "Goldberg in New York City protesting California Proposition 8 (2008)." Not funny, vandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ficklefker (talk • contribs) 23:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013

Please change main image caption from "Goldberg at a Bob Marley fancy dress competition in New York City, 2008." to "Whoopi Goldberg at Proposition 8 Rally in New York City, 2008." The image file name clearly states the latter, as does the image caption under 'Other media appearances'. Ficklefker (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The name Goldberg

This article states, "She adopted the traditionally German/Jewish surname Goldberg as a stage name because her mother felt that Johnson was not "Jewish enough" to make her a star [citation needed]." According to The Jewish Chronicle, this is just one story surrounding the origins of her surname. She did say at a charity event in 2011 that she is Jewish, though she doesn't practice any religion.[6] Perhaps she identifies with Judaism in a New Agey universalist way, or she might even have some Jewish ancestry, but she apparently wants the origins of her name to be mysterious.--די נעוטראַליזער (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding her use of the last name Goldberg, Ms. Goldberg states during an interview posted 3/6/2014 with Marlo Thomas that her mother suggested she use the name ‘Whoopi Goldberg’ rather than ‘Whoopie Cushion’ because no one would take her seriously using the latter, and that Goldberg is a family name. She also explains why she came to be called Whoopie Cushion in the first place. Here’s the link for reference.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/how-i-got-the-name-whoopi_n_4914382.html?1394461635&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl25%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D452462 ZouBEini (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone please add:

<center>{{Listen|embed=yes|filename=Whoopi Goldberg BBC Radio4 Desert Island Discs 10 May 2009 b00k7qyn.flac|title=<center>Whoopi Goldberg's voice</center>|type=speech|description=<center>[[:File:Whoopi Goldberg BBC Radio4 Desert Island Discs 10 May 2009 b00k7qyn.flac|Recorded May 2009]] from the BBC Radio 4 programme ''[[Desert Island Discs]]''</center>}}</center>

at the bottom of the infobox in the "module" section to add a file from the BBC voice recording project? Thank you. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Comedienne"

Please replace the outdated word "comedienne" with "comedian" in both her job listings and the body of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahel19 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --Zebranthony (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Whoopi Goldberg. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Books

i think the book, "Alice,"is NOT non-fiction. i haven't read it, but it probably just needs to go in the list of children's books.Colbey84 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Whoopi Goldberg. 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:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Undue focus on things she's said

The section "The View" seems to be accumulating a lot of material about various things Goldberg has said on the show. This seems to be developing into undue focus on these topics (most of which are not about Goldberg herself). It's one thing to state that so-and-so has often been vocal about such-and-such topic, but another to report every controversial thing she's said. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Lacking any objection, I've distilled that material to just the main points of each controversial statement. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks good. As she's on "The View", making controversial statements is part of her job. These sections can easily get bloated with a catalogue of all the controversial opinions ever expressed on the show. Nice to see it trimmed down. I hope you come by in a few months to do another pruning job. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Abortion Rights

Why no mention on how she is all for abortions? Here's the Youtube search results. https://www.youtube.com/results?q=whoopi+goldberg+abortion&sp=EgIQAQ%253D%253D 173.86.10.115 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Whoopi Goldberg. 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:

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) 21:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whoopi Goldberg. 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:

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) 17:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Critics of Islamophobia from this article and removal of category by User: Cpt.a.haddock

This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but there seems to be no source to this.

There is a discussion about the inclusion of articles that are in this category at category "Critics of Islamophobia".

I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles. There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.

User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization. (For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: V. Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.)

See his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock

The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whoopi Goldberg. 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:

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) 14:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to talk about how this prejudice person has the right to spew hatred about our President because he is not black! Judge Janean proved that to the whole world what an ass she is. And why wasn’t smart ass joy at the party? Because she’s an idiot sonny Houston was pretty silent also. Whoops got pretty mad when judge J started talking about Hussein Obama that piece of shit who did what for USA? Sell Nukes to Iran and give them Billions of Dollars!!! Pull our troops out without destroying them first- what’s the problem in telling them to get their civilians out first then blowing them up they have no problem doing that to us. He has no leadership capabilities or in other words he is a politician and he’s thinking of Votes. Now I’m gonna speak frankly and for everyone else in this Country well 95% - Whoopi Sonny & Joy shut the Fuck up get off the Air before somebody crazy goes Bizzerk on your dumb asses. Megan what the Hell are you doing being seen on TV with the Assholes’. And can you please tell me why it is so bad having a Summit with Putin while we keep letting thousands of Russian immigrants into our Country? I know because I live in Gouldsboro Pennsylvania and they collect welfare, food stamps, wic, Drive Cadillacs and live in big Houses right next door to me ever since the Obama, Go figure all of you better wake the fuck up !!! You are making us sick- Trump is one of the Best Presidents by far. Stop trying to find fault. Stormy Davis has a 7 year old daughter can you imagine what type of life you the media has put her life through, she is a porn star and her Husband just filed for Divorce for being Unfaithful. LOL. I see A Movie Deal Don’t you !!!again wake the FUCK UP I want you to put this out there make ‘‘tis go viral if you got ball s whoops l think you’re a prejudiced fuck Susan0403 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:TPG, WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


Everybody hates chris

Whoopi goldberg also featured in Evrybody hates Chris. You may also want to include that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.243.66.134 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Goldberg's son?

So I am now confused. There is absolutely no mention of a son in this article yet I have seen mention of her son in other places on the internet. Does she actually have a son or is this just more internet B.S.? If there is a son he ought to be mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.190.183.221 (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Health

Could you add that she had a sepsis illness in early 2019. It important because not many make it out of that. Indeed, Sepsis has a mortality rate of 40%-60%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4lmtree2 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoopee Cushion

Is she really known as Whoopie Cushion or is that a malicious edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.12.104 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

addition of a controversial comment

This is a comment that I believe merits inclusion" In March 2020, Goldberg advocated Jill Biden for Surgeon General because "... she’s a hell of a doctor. She’s an amazing doctor.” After being corrected that Biden's doctorate is in education and not medicine, co-host Sunny Hostin said "She’s a teacher but might be good for [Secretary of Education]".[3] There are other comments already attributed to Ms. Goldberg (Cosby rape defense; Vick dog fighting; Actor nude photos; etc) which may or may not be worthy of inclusion on their own. This is a newer comment, but it has gotten a great deal of press on all outlets. It was stated as a fact in light of the pandemic. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

. . . it has gotten a great deal of press on all outlets. Per WP:RSP, here are the generally reliable sources that documented all instances mentioned:
If we want to have a discussion regarding the dofighting comment, we can; but the Jill Biden gaffe, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE, should not be included. Even Goldberg's dismissal of McCain in December 2019 received more coverage from reliable sources (i.e., The Washington Post, The Hollywood Reporter, USA Today, Fox News, Vulture, Deadline Hollywood, Entertainment Weekly, The Hill). Should that be included? KyleJoantalk 10:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


Added missed reliable cites as well as some, including two interntl, that have had no reliability discussion. (One pro/con is this is 72 hours old, so expect fewer hits; whereas, the other examples are much older. However, when controling search and limiting to the same relative time frame, there are many more hits for this story than the others. That's expected with web growth, especially aggregators. That's got to be balanced with the polaization of today's news Media bias in the United States.

But your point with respect to the McCain/Goldberg controversy I think actually convinces me both of these belong in another article. Specifically because this issue involved not just Goldberg but two other hosts as well. So thank you.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't insert anything into my responses. Instead, add below my signature what I have missed.
Sources Mikethewhistle-original have found on the Jill Biden comment: The Daily Beast,Bangor ME,Washington Times,Media Research Center,Mediaite,TWNews,Wentworth Report,The Saturday Paper,The Union Journal,The Mix,Contemptor,News Parliament,Newsthud
The Daily Beast is generally reliable; well done. The rest are either marginally reliable or unproven. My original point was to state generally reliable sources and nothing else; if we want to involve marginally reliable and/or unproven sources, I'm absolutely sure the number of outlets that have documented the other three events would at least double.
One pro/con is this is 72 hours old . . . Per WP:RECENT, When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time. If we're waiting for more sources to establish the notability of the Jill Biden comment, then it is not suitable for inclusion, at least at this time.
That's got to be balanced with the polaization of today's news Media bias in the United States. WP:OR.
. . . the McCain/Goldberg controversy I think actually convinces me both of these belong in another article. You think Goldberg telling McCain, "Girl, please stop talking," is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic article? KyleJoantalk 04:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Whoopi Goldberg / Stop the Choddy". 2011-02-18. Retrieved 2011-02-18.
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg
  3. ^ "Whoopi Thinks Jill Biden, Not a Medical Doctor, Should Be Surgeon General CRINGE". DailyBeast. Retrieved 8 March 2020.

please explain why you did this revert

I'd like to ask why you undid the change I did to Whoopi_Goldberg#Entrepreneurship. This change kept all information, shortened the length of the section, and tightened references; but obviously you disagreed. Rather than talking about it, you simply reverted it, as you did many other edits.


Mine

Goldberg launched and co-founded of Whoopi & Maya in April 2016, a company that makes medical cannabis products for women seeking relief from menstrual cramps.[1] Goldberg says she was inspired to go into business by "a lifetime of difficult periods and the fact that cannabis was literally the only thing that gave me relief".[2]

VERSUS

Existing

Goldberg is co-founder of Whoopi & Maya, a company that makes medical cannabis products for women seeking relief from menstrual cramps.[1] Goldberg says she was inspired to go into business by "a lifetime of difficult periods and the fact that cannabis was literally the only thing that gave me relief".[2] The company was launched in April 2016.[2]


Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Hughes, Trevor (March 30, 2016). "Whoopi Goldberg founds medical marijuana company for women". USA Today. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  2. ^ a b c "Whoopi Goldberg & Maya Elisabeth Launch Line of Medical Cannabis Products Aimed to Reduce Menstrual Discomfort" (Press release). March 30, 2016. Archived from the original on June 1, 2016.

So which comments are worthy of mentioning?

I posted info with reference </ref> In March 2020, Goldberg stated Dr. Jill Biden, the spouse of Joe Biden and former second lady, should be the Surgeon General and that "she's a hell of a doctor. She's an amazing doctor". Jill Biden has a PhD in Education from the University of Delaware.[1] for a comment that was made on the View. There are examples of other comments she's made about Vick, Cosby, rape, and nude photos; but one person decided that mine wasn't worthy? The comment was factually wrong but clearly and explicitly stated by Goldberg as fact although she did ultimately apologize for being wrong.

So why not delete the Cosby comments, or Vick, or the rape-rape, or nude photos comments too?

What makes those comments stand out? I'm just curious.

I removed the information per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, which states: . . . merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the number of reliable sources that reported the comment about Dr. Biden is scarce in comparison to reports of the other occurrences that you mentioned (i.e., the nude photo comment was documented by Vox, CNN, USA Today, Vanity Fair, The Hollywood Reporter, BBC, People, Fox News, and The Independent amongst others; whereas the Dr. Biden comment has only been reported by Fox News, as you cited, and The Hill). Sourcing is directly related to WP:UNDUE, which stated: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I hope this clears it up! KyleJoantalk 08:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This does help some. First I posted just one source but it was one of the 5 major news networks so I think it passes the reliable meter as it wasn't an opinion and included the video which I saw. I also just googled it, and there are over 30k hits on it in just two days and there are a slew of news outlets with it (somebody has to be first). I can see your view with respect to proportion to prominence generally and I'll have to re-read wiki guidance, but I (and I'm a party of one) saw it as a pretty major misspeak because it was stated with authority on her part with respect to the coronavirus and criticizing Trump political appointees. I didn't include the entire quote because of space, but it was stated with that she knew it for a fact and if you watch it spoken with authority. While I shouldn't solely believe that it should be something worthy on my own, I hope that you also will accept that you shouldn't solely be a decider of what to remove (which is why I came here). I looked at your wiki edits and you remove alot of things. I didn't dig in them so you might be right, but you have literally dozens of undos and they're on a relatively few wiki pages (several of people related to the View, which makes me wonder if you have a vested interest in the View or are just a fan). But I thank you for the input and I'd just close with I hope that you don't over delete because information is power unless someone removes it. Cheers!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity I went and search regarding the Michael Vick comment and for the same time period there were less than half the number of google hits as there are for this comment. Some allowance is needed because since 2007 there are alot more websites, but even still that seems significant. I also searched re:cosby and it had roughly the same # of hits as her Biden comment although I added extra days. I wanted to search for the other items but I couldn't craft a search that worked. (cosby's rape is mixed in with the rape-rape comments).

A concern that I didn't state above and I'll just add, is I don't want comments excluded because they're not considered pc or others are considered more pc. Comments are comments, and she sure makes a lot. This is the first time I thought one to be worthy, and I don't like to see stuff deleted so I wouldn't go to delete any of those on there regardless although I have reread wiki's guidance and most of it centered on lists where this isn't a list. But honestly it doesn't change my life one way or another. Who knows, maybe someone else will think it's worthy and repost it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 08:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Whoopi Goldberg mistakenly touts Dr. Jill Biden for surgeon general: 'She's a hell of a doctor'". Fox News. Retrieved 4 March 2020.

This keep happening sadly, only the other day she made comments saying the holocaust wasn't about race and then walked back I think with all these comments a controversy section is now needed after these array of different incidents. Which in a personal opinion I believe she's doing so to create headlines and there's no care to the people it hurts in the process. Scorchgider (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Spot on! The one about the Holocaust was stupid, ignorant, illiterate and mega-nasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Holocaust thing.

How come no one is mentioning this? Just wondering. Isn’t Wikipedia, for the most part, supposed to be unbiased? 73.133.76.248 (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Erm... there's already a whole paragraph about it? Girth Summit (blether) 22:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Religion

She seems to have a very unclear faith as all the source are contradicting each other.[1][2][3][4] Feel free to try to figure out what she is, I can't wrap my head around it. Lmharding (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nickiswift.com/619739/the-truth-about-whoopi-goldbergs-relationship-to-judaism/
  2. ^ https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-695351
  3. ^ https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/whoopi-goldberg-i-m-jewish-and-i-talk-to-god-1.23000
  4. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/whoopi-goldberg-suspended-the-view-black-jewish-b2006302.html

Missing movie from 1990's: The Deep End of the Ocean

I don't know if we're listing every movie she was in, but I noticed "the deep end of the Ocean" (1999) was missing from the article. 2605:59C8:4A7:4910:11F7:349A:50E9:498D (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Controversies

This section is a disaster area of indecipherable WP:NOTFORUM ranting, but since there’s one or two semi-productive points I’m collapsing rather than deleting Dronebogus (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism is disgusting and partaking in a public demonstration of this nature warrants a Controversies section on the person's article at the very least. Regardless of the person. To deny the severity is pardoning the nature of her remarks and could only be argued by someone who either holds a bias in favor of Goldberg as a person, if not someone who agrees with her off-base racist view. It's only one or the other. Article is locked at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.103.119 (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP, then try your argument again. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
In relation to Roe v Wade, A rich liberal person needs to sue every insurance company as to when life begins. There is no insurance company that will insure a fetus. Therefore, the courts will be forced to state that life begins at birth only. Otherwise, every life and medical insurance company will leave the US, and there will be no insurance, and this stupid right wing will be shut down. 99.48.85.13 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that right-wingers would hesitate to destroy the American economy, in order to achieve their ideological causes. It is the nature of the fanatic to disregard danger. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who would hide behind arbitrary rules like that, to pardon the point made in the previous comment, is comically missing the point and betraying the severity of the subject matter, and that only adds more validity to the first comment's point. It's all I have to say on the topic and nothing is left to gain discussing beyond that. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.103.119 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't there a controversies section now? Why are some animals more equal than others? 2601:48:8101:4720:685F:9854:DBC8:6CC8 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Anonymous

See WP:CSECTION for discussion of such sections. In general, they are inappropriate. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
From WP:BLP "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved."
I came to this article after reading a news headline, without reading the article, because I hoped to find here an unbiased summary. That's what I expect of a good encyclopedia that includes recent news, and I suspect it's what most people expect.
A public figure who creates or is involved in multiple, if not frequent, public controversies should provide summaries of the controversies, with links if the controversy has a separate article. This would be highly appropriate in this case.
JD Lambert(T|C) 17:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, and I didn't say otherwise. I was answering the question "why isn't there a controversies section". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with the sentiment above that Whoopi Goldberg's racial comments about the Holocaust are notable and merit mention in her article. The first step would be to aggregate articles that discuss her comments that are published by "reliable sources". I can focus on this after the New Year when I have the time, but anyone who reads this and agrees with the sentiment expressed by the first comment in this thread should post links to such articles here on the talk page so they can be properly formatted into citations for a potential edit of Goldberg's page.

Edit: I see that her racial comments about the Holocaust are mentioned in the article, buried in the section that discusses her work on the View. It's still worth considering if these comments are notable enough to be included more prominently in the article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Whoopi Doubling Down Edit

As per the request to take this to the Talk page, it was not my intention to edit-war. I was in the process of working out how to edit in the fact Whoopi Goldberg doubled down on her insistence that Jews are not a race and the Holocaust was not about race when my edits were reverted. I do see the point that Turner's commentary about Goldberg's blinkered incuriosity about racism beyond her American experience was possibly a violation of Wikipedia standards of neutral POV, and I actually agree my edit was too long. That being said, I think summing up what happened in one brief sentence is too short. I don't get the idea that because a controversy came and went in two or three days that it necessarily warrants a more concise summation, especially when part of a larger controversy and when juxtaposed against her other controversies that came and went in short time frames, but I should be able to word it in a briefer statement and I would like to at least keep some important quotations for context.- EricSpokane (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Our personal analyses aside, the claim that Goldberg insisted "Jews are not a race" during the December 2022 interview is a WP:BLP violation without support from high-quality sources. The two reverted edits violated the policy since neither cited source supports it. Writing a new paragraph is undue because reliable sources only report said interview in relation to the original January 2022 statement. Due to this, it's only appropriate to attach the interview as a new wave of the preexisting controversy rather than its own incident. Adding "Goldberg drew criticism again for expressing similar sentiments and later apologized again" to the end of the existing paragraph is more than sufficient. KyleJoantalk 16:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
She all but states "Jews are not a race" in the December 2022 interview. "My best friend said, ‘Not for nothing is there no box on the census for the Jewish race. So that leads me to believe that we’re probably not a race." When the interviewer pushes back, arguing the Nazis viewed Jews as a race, Whoopi responds, "Yes, but that’s the killer, isn’t it? The oppressor is telling you what you are. Why are you believing them? They’re Nazis. Why believe what they’re saying?" The interviewer points out Nazis formulated laws around race and asked wasn't the Holocaust about race. Whoopi again: "It wasn’t originally. Remember who they were killing first. They were not killing racial; they were killing physical. They were killing people they considered to be mentally defective. And then they made this decision." The interviewer asks if race can be more than skin color. Whoopi says, "Well, it’s not in its official… when you look it up." But the Nazis measured the heads and noses of Jews to "prove" they were a distinct race, the interviewer points out. Whoopi again: "They did that to black people too. But it doesn’t change the fact that you could not tell a Jew on a street. You could find me. You couldn’t find them. That was the point I was making."
Does Whoopi need to point-blank say verbatim "Jews are not a race" in order for that to be the substance of the point she's making? Yes, she was both arguing Jews are not a race and the Holocaust wasn't about race in the same interview. As for high-quality sources, this is the original interview. That would constitute a primary source, wouldn't it? "Goldberg drew criticism for expressing similar sentiments and later apologized again" seems a much too concise, minimizing, and whitewashing way of writing what she said. That the controversy blew over, unlike the previous one, doesn't make sense to me as a justification to keep it that concise. Kanye West has an entire Views of Kanye West page and when he made antisemitic comments in 2013 that blew over quickly, it's given 3 paragraphs in order to have some breathing room and explain what happened.
How's this for a rewording?
"In a December 24, 2022 interview with The Sunday Times Magazine, despite instructions to the interviewer Janice Turner that the controversy on The View was forbidden from being brought up, Goldberg again argued that Jews are not a race and that the Holocaust was not based on race, pointing out that Nazis killed mental patients first. When Turner told Goldberg that "the Nazis measured the heads and noses of Jews to 'prove' they were a distinct race," Goldberg replied, "They did that to Black people too. But it doesn’t change the fact that you could not tell a Jew on a street." Following backlash, Goldberg made another apology on December 27." - EricSpokane (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY states that we must not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". What is required to write that Goldberg "again argued that Jews are not a race" is reliable secondary sources that neutrally state that claim in their report or analysis of the interview.
The reword remains undue since its length is still similar to the controversy surrounding the January 2022 statement. As you said yourself, the interview blew over, so it's really as simple as sources assigning that event way less weight than they did Goldberg's earlier statement, which was a much more notable event.
Whether Goldberg's views warrant an article is irrelevant, and Views of Kanye West#2013 shows one paragraph, not three. KyleJoantalk 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@KyleJoan, I didn't say Goldberg's views warranted an article. But my mistake, I meant to say Kanye's 2013 comments get 3 lines, not 3 paragraphs, even though that incident also blew over quickly.
That being said, if I can locate secondary sources "neutrally" repeating what the primary source itself already says, then I can include that in the summation of what happened? That's a confusing rule, but if that's Wikipedia policy, I'll abide by it. EricSpokane (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but there also has to be enough of them to demonstrate that the interview received as much or more coverage than the original controversy. This is important because one of the main issues with this edit was a failure to meet the due weight policy. I suggested cutting it down to one sentence, but since you still disagree, go ahead and present those sources in order to justify the length of the material you're proposing. KyleJoantalk 01:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

stroke Hasdoneit (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Under "Awards and Honors", the article states she is one of 17 to achieve the EGOT. This is out of date and should be 18. Offendo (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

Can the foxnews ref be removed? It's not deemed reliable, and there's already two other sources backing up the same point (in a non-propagandistic way). 92.10.153.30 (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. As it's not explicitly a politics or science article, there is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News as a source (WP:FOXNEWS), so that alone is not a reason to remove the source. However, this sentence likely does not need two mid-sentence and three end-of-sentence citations, the other sources cover the claim, and the Fox News link happens to be dead and malformed, so I see no serious issue with removing it. If other editors disagree with this, feel free to revert me. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Lack of Controversy Tab

Why is there no controversy tab for Whoopi Goldberg despite the numerous controversies she’s been involved with? As recent as December of 2022 she expressed anti-semitic views live on television. That’s pretty controversial in my opinion, but I guess Wikipedia is now Wokepedia. Why is it that Kanye West has a controversial views tab but Whoopi does not when it seems that they actually have very similar views when it comes to the Jewish community. 2600:100E:A010:E04E:BD49:8571:1612:904D (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is generally preferable to cover controversies and criticism throughout the body of an article, instead of in an isolated section. Structuring the controversies out into their own section not only creates a section that is generally tilted negatively, but also causes other sections to be tilted positively (since all the controversies go to the controversies section). See WP:CSECTION for more on this idea.
If there is specific material that you believe is missing from this article, you can make an edit request to add it. If your concern is that other subjects are being covered in a way that does not align with this, I recommend making improvements to those articles (as of this comment, Kanye West does not appear to have an independent "Controversy" section either, for what it's worth). Please note that Wikipedia's policy on coverage of living persons applies to talk pages as well as article space; any claims made here should be backed up with reliable sources (including claims about people who are not the subject of the article). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 14:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whoopi_Goldberg/Archive_1&oldid=1258014419"