ellen Barkin

Guess she tweeted something wishing death and destruction on people who oppose her life view. Apparently, someone's been busy vandalizing her page. So it goes.

I removed the edit about Barkin dating actor Fiennes because it seems to me, sorry, not worthy of a reputable encyplopedia, but more of a torrid gossip tabloid daily. What are we to do follow her dating habits on a monthly basis? I think not. It would seem very silly to me. The edit about her marriage and selling her jewels irks me as well, but at least it was her marriage and its end. In short, acording to wiki policy re "public figures" information must be both notable and important to the article. Gossip is not. Please due not edit back in. Luigibob 11:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that there is nothing about her trademark lopsided smile in this article. Is that because no one can find a qualified source to keep it in the article against the timorous supporters of their own peculiar interpretation of WP:BLP? -- llywrch 01:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There's just not much to say about it. Chris Croy 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Not even, "She is known for her trademark lopsided smile?" -- llywrch 21:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I Removed Greta from the filmorgraphy - someone apparently had barkin confused with Ellen Burstyn.Matt Kurz (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heard she is part Mongolian of all things...if not only because of how unusual it is, it is noteworthy to mention.

Maybe she is like the other 758 trillion people in the U.S. who are part Cherokee.Lestrade (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Barkin mentioned on a Letterman guest appearance that she suffered an eye disease that would eventually cause blindness. --Somecallmerick (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A review that particularly enhanced Barkin's career was written by Pauline Kael in the New Yorker for the movie Diner. Kael was extremely influential at the time. Kael noted that Barkin's stillness in performance allowed the viewer to see what she was thinking. --Somecallmerick (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the photograph of Ellen Barkin in the article, does anyone know who started the recent trend for people to be photographed with the mouth wide open and the nose wrinkled? Possibly, it was Oprah or the film Bring It On and its sequels.Lestrade (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

I uploaded that photo because it's the only free content photo of her available anywhere. That really is the best photo the photographer took of her. Chris Croy (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:my deleting a paragraph on Barkin's Twitter use, I looked further into this and in addition to my reasoning in the edit summary, have found out that the information is not only not meeting NPOV, source reliability and relevancy standards, but in addition some of the information is completely false. In particular, this last line: "In November 2014, she tweeted that fetuses, babies and infants are not persons because they “cannot talk.” " This is NOT what she said, the original tweet reads "News flash... a fetus cannot talk. It is not a person. Not even a baby, not even an infant. Nope. Sorry." It is relevant to mention an actor's political and religious views, if they have publicly stated them. However, information about these should come from reliable sources (not tabloids or websites promoting a particular political goal, e.g. in this case, anti-abortion legislation) and be discussed in a neutral manner, whatever they are. If Barkin's Twitter use is so notable to have actually created a lot of public discussion (i.e. in national or international mainstream media), this can be relevant to mention, but it must be sourced properly. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Linking directly to a person's Twitter account does not prove that the tweet is actually important enough to warrant a notion in an article; what is needed first is proof that her tweets actually have become subject to wider discussion in mainstream media, and so far, this has not been provided. Googling for example "Ellen Barkin Twitter Hurricane Isaac" or "Ellen Barkin Twitter row" brings up nothing but articles from unreliable sites and blogs such as Lifenews. Daily Mail is a British tabloid that not only regularly publishes rumours and false information, but also cannot be used as a source proving that there has been widespread discussion on Barkin's tweets. DM publishes everything that they can come up with about stars, the majority of their articles are about "look, a celebrity went grocery shopping!"; if it was used as a yardstick for what is relevant to mention about celebrities, we'd be drowning in material. It is definitely not considered a reliable source, certainly not without corroboration from more reliable news outlets (e.g. BBC, The Times, The Guardian etc. in the UK). While Barkin is certainly outspoken about her beliefs on Twitter, it does not seem that her tweets have been subject to widespread controversy, or at least it is difficult to find information proving this.
It does seem to me that this whole section has been added by people with 'pro-life' views wishing to use the page to further their cause, based on the false information about her saying that infants are not persons, the weird line about how she has not changed her views, to the line in the middle stating that she is an atheist... this is clearly against WP policy. Why not just write that Barkin is outspokenly feminist, atheist, pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ etc., if this is what she has stated in interviews and on Twitter? That way her political views are mentioned, but in a neutral way. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Oh, and you going out of your way to nitpick this has nothing to do with your own beliefs and biases? Let's be real here.

The fact of the matter is:

-Her de facto endorsement of those comments about the hurricane HAVE received national attention. I realize that you're probably not the type to take much stock in what Breitbart has to say, but they DID report on this, it IS a news outlet with a significant following, and a lot of people DO trust it. I concede that Breitbart is a more of a political site than a news site, but can you honestly say that you wouldn't be making the same argument if it was Fox News instead? ALL news outlets have their biases, it's ridiculous to pretend that only one or two have them or that just because an issue was reported on by a group with an agenda like LifeSiteNews it means that issue isn't worth mentioning and can't be added to an article in a neutral manner.

-Even if it weren't reported by any outlet that you may deem significant enough, the fact remains that she said it, it can easily be documented, and a famous person using their influence to spread this kind of hatred isn't anything to be brushed off. Trust me, she's said a LOT more hateful things that weren't added to this page, but none of them caused enough of a stir to generate a news reference. If I didn't care about following the rules here, I'd just add them. I tried to remain as neutral as I could in adding it to this page, and people deserve the truth.

The fetus comments were not added to this section by me originally, and having now read the original tweets, I concede that she was misquoted. The atheist bit wasn't mine either, and I actually removed it in my last revision because the Tweet in question made such a broad, baseless statement that I didn't think it was even worth it. I also concede that I perhaps don't know as much about the Daily Mail as I thought. I was told that it was a left-leaning source by someone, and several articles of theirs that I read seem to suggest that they were.

Whatever. I'm not even going to bother fixing it this time. I used a source straight from the horse's mouth for one factoid (and was in the process of obtaining the URL for the other, pending an approval to follow the Twitter account that Barkin retweeted from), but that's not good enough for you. It's impossible to set things right because the people in charge that I could possibly appeal to all think like you do, and would just kill the story and/or ban my account. What was supposed to be a collection of information that anyone could add to if they could report on it in a neutral way and had the proper sources has become a whitewashed, censored account of human history that only contains what the administration deems acceptable to their worldview. The system is broken.

-(talk) -TBustah