Talk:Debra Winger

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

kibbutz visit: proposed clarification

The article currently says:

"she spent several months

volunteering in Beit Zera, a Kibbutz in

Israel.[angle bracket, open]ref[angle bracket, closed]http://www.jewishjournal.com/arts/article/big_bad_debra_20020308/[angle bracket, open]/ref[angle bracket, closed]"

That implies that she was part of the kibbutz. Here's a possible fix:

"she spent several months[this code would request someone to provide a support for this alleged duration; the existing citation seems not to give the duration]

visiting Beit Zera, a Kibbutz in

Israel.[angle bracket, open]ref[angle bracket, closed]http://www.jewishjournal.com/arts/article/big_bad_debra_20020308/. She has stated publicly and with amusement that the Internet has a growing "snowball" of claims that she had been part of a kibbutz in Israel, whereas the truth according to her is that she merely visited the kibbutz, as many young people do (also according to her statement). 2008-Jun-10 appearance by Debra Winger on WNYC radio's Leonard Lopate Show, archived at <http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2008/06/10>. [angle bracket, open]/ref[angle bracket, closed]"

Does this change seem okay? Thanks. Bo99 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz. Thanks for changing the article a bit on this point. I think there is still a little room for fixing: still the wiki article cites a Jewish Journal article that propagates the misconception that Winger "ran off to a kibbutz"; sooner or later someone is going to re-dump that vague misconception back into the wiki article; one could/should preempt that mistake with maybe the proposed fixes above. Also, "spent some time" in the current article version seems too vague for an encyclopedia. Bo99 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Bo - I hadn't seen this comment here, just picked up the inaccuracy listening to the Lopate interview. I think what she is saying is that she was on a youth program in Israel, during which they spent some time (unspecified amount) on a kibbutz etc. - my guess is that the kibbutz stay was more than a passing through visit but much less than running away to it. I'll try another fix. (By the way - if you want to show footnotes or other wiki markup in discussion here you can use the <nowiki> and </nowiki> commands before and after the markup. Let me know if that makes sense - if not, I'll try to explain it better.) Tvoz/talk 17:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's humorous, we were in sync in what we heard and when we edited.

I recall fairly clearly she used the word "visiting", or maybe "observing". I like your fixes.

Thanks also for the nowiki idea.Bo99 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Any time - I was trying to think of {{specify}} instead of {{cn}} so it's a fair trade. Reads fine now. Tvoz/talk 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Voice of E.T. ?

I recall this "fact" from the on-screen trivia while waiting to watch a movie at my local theater. Is this true? if it is, it's not referenced here, nor in the E.T. article. Wikihonduras 00:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true, and it has been in this article for a long time - read "Career". Tvoz |talk 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is false. No citation. David Spector 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"True...": "Did Debra Winger Voice 'E.T."?". Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen. 30 October 2018. Retrieved 31 October 2018 – via YouTube.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"...An Officer and a Gentleman, wasn't so much the director, but we had bad men running the show..."

• "Debra Winger's Sexual Tension With Co-Star John Travolta". Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen. 30 October 2018. Retrieved 31 October 2018 – via YouTube.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Polanski

This is a biography of Winger's life, subject to WP:BLP rules, so our first concern is that material be reliably sourced. However we also are concerned about the notability of material for a bio - are additions significant to the story of her life or are they just the most recent news about her, etc. At this point in my opinion her involvement in the Polanski story has not risen to the level of biography for Winger. The film community's support for him, and Winger's involvement in that, might rise to that level for Polanski's bio or more surely in the article 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski but they are not about Winger's life and career at this time. Perhaps as the story unfolds this will become more significant in her life, but not now - the IP's statement here that it is important to her doesn't make it appropriate to her bio at present. This is the standard Wikipedia approach to bios. Tvoz/talk 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I pretty much agree with Tvoz. Not a significant event in Winger's life, and the sources don't even make clear whether she is speaking personally or as a spokesman for the film festival jury which she chairs. Worth including in the article on the arrest itself, but as it stands not useful anywhere else.

And we've got 3RR issues with the anon (seems to be just one, despite multiple addresses) who keeps adding this back in without coming to talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest addition incorrectly refers to Fox news which doesn't appear in the source and provides details of Polanski's case that belong in articles about him, not about Winger. Also, what makes anyone think this would belong in a section of her bio called "personal life"? Is there a campaign going on here? Tvoz/talk 18:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Inasmuch as this is a biography of Winger's life, what she says in a public capacity is noteworthy as it becomes part of the public record of her life. That is why I chose to include her remarks that were made as jury member of the Zurich Film Festival calling the Swiss authorities' actions "philistine collusion" and to properly source them. For you to remove them is nothing short of censorship. Pchas/talk

The other editors have explained that they removed the information for reasons of relevance to Winger's overall biography. Unless you have the psychic ability to read their minds, you have to accept the reasons they gave, even if you disagree with their actions. State your case, as you have, but don't categorize the actions of other editors as censorship when they have explained. I also feel that the comment is of little relevance to Winger's overall story at the moment and unless it develops into something more, it's not needed. I also find it interesting, that although Winger has a reputation for being outspoken on a number of social and political topics, this is the only one considered worth mentioning. This also places WP:UNDUE weight on this one comment. If you want to write a section about Winger's statements/causes I would consider this suitable as part of that kind of discussion, but not in isolation. Rossrs (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel appearing in movies is of more importance than speaking out on the world stage regarding the release of a convicted rapist? I mean come on, really. She thought is was important enough to speak to the world. Why should her own convictions be censored on her own wiki page. It seems pretty shallow to only talk about how she feels about Richard Gear and the like but omit her feelings about her friend Roman Polanski. Oh can you please source all of the stuff about her disliking her co-stars, or do we only need to source the details of her life you would like to censor? 75.173.237.9 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, basically .... because she's an actress. She's not a social commentator, a lawyer, a politician or a journalist. She's an actress with an opinion. Is it her opinion, or that of the film festival jury? Do you know? Care? But that is not what I said - or anybody said - at all. I said that Winger is an outspoken person - she is known for saying what she thinks about a lot of things. My point was WHY do we only care about what she said about Polanski? Because it's a hot topic and everyone wants to jump on it? That's not a good enough reason. Are you interested in having her views on a range of topical issues conveyed, or just this one? I also said that if her comments about Polanski were given as one example of her various outspoken remarks, it would not constitute WP:UNDUE weight in relation to this one topic. A few points to ponder. Does her acting expertise make her qualified to speak on the world stage about anything other than acting? Specifically the legal and moral aspects of a contraversial rape case that she was not personally involved in? Should we be giving her a platform to put forward her viewpoint on any subject other than acting? I don't know the answers to these questions; they're something to think about. You're right in saying the comments about Richard Gere etc are crap, and to put it bluntly, this is not a very good or comprehensive article, but several wrongs don't add up to a right. Winger is known as a prickly person. How relevant is it? I don't know. Not very, probably. If you think the article could lose the Richard Gere and other co-star comments, as currently written, I would agree with you on that. Please don't confuse the various reasons editors may have for omitting information with censorship. It's an easy conclusion to draw, probably too easy, but it's not necessarily correct, especially when the editors have given their reasons before you cried censorship. Rossrs (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rossrs, you have some valid points. But at what point is an actress or actor more than just an actress or actor. Saying an actress is just an actress and cannot be more than that seems to place them in a small box. Most activist whether political or environmental usually, not always, have reached some sort of popularity by other means than just being an activist. When a person gets on the world stage and speaks about controversial subjects with the desire to change an outcome they have placed themselves into the activists role. Dpitts428 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. My main point was (and is) that she has commented on a range of issues. Some of her opinions may be quite insightful, and may help enormously in making the article more comprehensive, but nobody's interested enough to report them here. She makes a comment about Polanski and it's seized upon as if she has finally said something quotable. To report that comment, and only that comment, places undue weight on it, but true enough it places her in the role of activist. I was also responding to the question "Why do you feel appearing in movies is of more importance ...." which is a very odd question to ask about someone who is a professional actor. Rossrs (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As you know authors of articles write what is of interest to them. Should we delete a creditable addition to a bio article just because other authors have not written other quotes or published opinions of the person. If you find the addition to have undue weight on it why not add other quotes or should we just delete the addition till other quotes are authored. How many other quotes enough, who decides. I thought wiki articles grow with each contribution. And for the (deletors) of creditable additions to just site "not notable" can be and in this case is censorship. I still do not know why it is not notable. Maybe other quotes she has made may also be notable. Please add them if you like, but don't delete contributions just because you do not want to read about it. I do not think Debra Winger would mind if it was included in her bio. She proudly endorsed Roman. Why do you mind? The "last changes" made were creditable and extremely neutral. 75.173.237.9 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually disagree with your comments (except your assertion that this amounts to censorship). Personally, I don't mind that she "endorsed" Roman. I respect that she lives in a society where she can speak freely, but it's still a question of overall relevance. Numerous people have made comments about Polanski, but I don't think the comments belong in the articles of the people who said it. We could easily pepper Wikipedia with a number of quotes, that collectively have some meaning but individually not so much. It doesn't have a wider relevance to their biographies, and unless they continue to speak about Polanski, the current relevance will quickly diminish. Handling current information per WP:RECENT isn't always easy. I know you disagree, but I don't think Winger's quote is relevant in Winger's article. It has some relevance to the article Roman Polanski, but the article that it is most relevant to (in my opinion) is 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski as part of a "collective" response/reaction. Rossrs (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballo, Your last edit is at least consistent with your recent edits regarding source material. Although I do disagree with what you believe to be notable. Dpitts428 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hand in hand schools

I moved the paragraph about her interest in the Hand in Hand schools/ Arab-Jewish reconciliation in Israel out of "personal life" as that's not what that section is about. I'm not sure it belongs in the article at all, though - I left it in pending discussion,because at least the quote from her says that this was something she was "dedicating her life" to, which raises it to a level of notability - but I'd like to see some independent sourcing on this other than that from Hand in Hand, and would like to know what other editors think. As has been said, she has been involved in many causes - health issues, environmental, women's issues, human rights - so I am not sure we should include just one. Thoughts? Tvoz/talk 01:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the Wikipedia pages any number of celebrities, political activity and other "causes" always appear in their Personal life sections - I was just following that tradition. Re the quote, the reference is to an article in the mainstream Haaretz newspaper, and so is sufficiently independent. I inserted the reference pointing to the Hand in Hand site where the article is reproduced, because newspapers sometimes do not allow indefinite free access to their archive stories. Also, there are links on that page to parallel articles in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, Jerusalem Post, etc. However, we could have it point directly to Haaretz instead, if that's better. Arikk (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the subheaders were needed, and they could also fit under the Personal Life section. I think it's a point well worth making, because she's backed up her words with actions, and said she would dedicate a portion of her life to this activity. Different to (for example) the Polanski comment, which seems to be a one-off comment. This is the kind of structure that can be expanded so that other activities can be included. Looks good to me. Rossrs (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Arikk, I actually hadn't looked at the source when I made the edit (shame on me - I should have), so of course you're right that it's probably better to use a secondary source that will remain active than a primary source that may not. I fixed the citation to give that information. As for the placement of the material I can see how it could fit in "personal life", but to me her activism is more professional than personal so I've changed the header accordingly. I'm open to moving it back if editors think it fits better there, so let's see where this goes. There are more citeable examples of her activism, which should be added to round out that section, as Rossrs suggests. And her acting career should be expanded as well - for example, when she was at Harvard she did a stint at the American Repertory Theater that could be added - I'll look for a good reference. Tvoz/talk 07:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The career section needs to be rewritten

The career section currently is a bit of a hodge-podge, the result of uncoordinated contributions from various editors (which includes me). There should be an unbroken accounting of her various film roles, then notes about her assorted acting awards, and then end with the paragraph about her being "hard to work with". This would give it a much more professional reading. __209.179.16.138 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Television list goes thru 2021, But "Stranger Things" is not included. Any reason why? 24.60.189.169 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The whole cast?

I'm guessing the reason the entire cast of this one show, unlike all her other work, is listed is because... Someone is trying to promote it?

"In 2013 she starred in three episodes of In the Woods,[22] the first installment of Jennifer Elster's multimedia, experimental film series The Being Experience, also including: Terrence Howard, Dave Matthews, Rufus Wainwright, Karen Black, Will Shortz, Liya Kebede, Questlove, Famke Janssen, Moby, Gale Harold, Paz de la Huerta, Jorgen Leth, Rosie Perez, Aubrey de Grey, and Alan Cumming." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Why?

"When Barbara Walters interviewed Bette Davis in 1986, Davis said, "I see a great deal of myself in Debra Winger." Not sure why this information is included in this article. I know very little about Ms Davis so a quote from her saying she 'sees' Ms Winger in herself is pretty much meaningless. If their personalities are similar it's a leap to assume this is common knowledge to all who may read this article. I was tempted to remove that sentence, but maybe there is a 'good' reason for it's inclusion that I am unaware of at this point. Thoughts? THX1136 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)