Talk:Amy Schumer

Controversy section

I get people don't want this page vandalized due to comments Amy has made on social media, but at the very least is owed a controversy section. Amy herself has posted a racist cartoon calling all Gazans rapist, has misquoted MLK, etc. Adding a controversy section is how a very similar issue was handled on Spyglass Media Group. 2600:8806:3105:E500:B430:723B:3E88:1EBE (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't shouldn't create WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONs. We can add something in other places based on what WP:RS say, but you have to bring us some. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Y'all definitely create controversy sections on articles in situations like this. I've seen it a million times before on Wikipedia. Here's a page that has one for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass_Media_Group 72.196.233.42 (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Address removing that controversy section on Talk:Spyglass Media Group, not here. I've modified my original comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually I just looked at that page and saw a comment about one actress getting fired and no evidence of "controversy", so I deleted it entirely. Controversy sections are bad for Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Controversy sections are great for Wikipedia.... 2001:5A8:60D3:4A00:DC73:C61F:9BA3:2182 (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand. Was the Controversies section deleted from this article, or did it never exist? I notice there is no mention at all in the article of the controversy that occurred when Schumer discussed in her own book how as a teenager she had manipulated and bribed her younger sister for sexual favors. I personally wouldn’t want Schumer hounded for that and I’m sympathetic to the argument that it was just typical teenage sex-play that no adult should be condemned for. In fact, I’m much more emotionally comfortable with its being omitted from the article, yet the fact that the entire episode, which did at the time become a national and international controversy, and was based on content she had published in her own book, has been thrown down the “memory hole” and is not even mentioned by Wikipedia, as though it never happened, is somewhat chilling. The mention of the controversy has even apparently been expunged from this “Talk” page, although it was once prominent here. Could someone explain? Embram (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Embram No, Amy Schumer did NOT bribe her sister for sexual favors and recount it in her autobiography. You are thinking of Lena Dunham and her much younger sister, see here. It was not "teen-age sex play" and did indeed cause international controversy with both prominent feminists and Fox News concurring on the behavior being incest and child molestation by Dunham. That is the reason all details were expunged from this BLP talk page, as it has nothing to do with Amy Schumer, the subject of this BLP.--FeralOink (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, that explains it then. Thanks. Embram (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Amy Schumer 2007 co-founder of the Collective

Can it be added under her early career first paragraph that she, Kevin Kane and others co-founded The Collective, which is a boundary-pushing theater group that publishes, performs and promotes work "that is emotionally truthful, socially relevant, and defiantly accessible." They also perform and publish a book of 10 10-minute plays (example of news coverage here) TDpaul23 (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, especially since you kindly provided a source. Will do if not done already.--FeralOink (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Religious background

Ms Schumer's father is Jewish, her mother is a Jewish convert, and she was raised Jewish. What's wrong with stating that outright? 2A02:8109:830C:1100:AD8D:DB08:58FF:3D4C (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it standard for Wikipedia to talk about the religion or religions of the parents of subjects of Wikipedia pages? Embram (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That information has been added to the article, IP user.--FeralOink (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It isn't standard per se, Embram, although it often is included in BLPs IFF properly sourced. I will confirm whether it is.--FeralOink (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Her picture is old and not representative

She seems to be the only actress still doing movies whose picture in Wikipedia is from one and a half decade ago. A much more recent photo is needed. 2804:214:819F:782D:904:A0EE:2FC9:2FA (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. We don't have many great options (), but List of awards and nominations received by Amy Schumer does use File:Women's March - Washington DC 2017 (31739104414) (cropped).jpg as the page's lead image, so I'll change this one to that image as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2025

FROM

* 2013: ''Mostly Sex Stuff'' (Comedy Central 2012) – DVD/download/streaming

TO

* 2013: ''Mostly Sex Stuff'' (Comedy Central 2012) – DVD/download/streaming<ref name="youtube/zjJKQ7tEdLQ">{{cite web |last1=Schumer |first1=Amy |author1-link=Amy Schumer |title=Mostly Sex Stuff |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjJKQ7tEdLQ |website=[[Comedy Central]] Deutschland |access-date=5 May 2025 |language=|via=[[youtube.com]] |date=2012}}</ref>

69.181.17.113 (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Inline citations are not substitutes for external links – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Singer?

Why does this BLP have singer in their lead description? Maineartists (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image

• 
  Nutella lover's proposition
• 
  Muboshgu's proposition

Neither of them are out of focus. The image you prefer is taken as she is speaking, not deliberately posing, in a dark environment, is grainy and has an awkward posture. The image I'm suggesting is well-lit, taken with awareness as she is looking towards the camera as she is deliberately posing and not speaking. It's clearly much more flattering and provides more encyclopaedic value.

While it may be five years later, it's outdated too and doesn't express a dramatic appearance shift. The older photo is simply the more encyclopaedic choice despite its lower resolution and age. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 16:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I'm not sure you got this. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 09:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say Nutella's proposal - it's clearly (no pun intended) the better choice, and although lower resolution has better composure and image sharpness. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I was awaiting input from other editors. The image on the right is more recent, it's better lit, and she's more directly facing the camera. The left image is blurrier and less representative of her now. We're not here to "flatter" the subject; that's how she attended a large march. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, the image on the right isn't "my" proposal, it's the WP:STATUSQUO image for I don't know how long. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to choose an image that flatters the subject - I'm proposing to choose an image that best represents and shows the subject, and I believe that it's the left image - for a start, I'm not convinced that it's better lit, or that she's more directly facing the camera. However, discussion and opinions were asked for and this is mine - I support the first image as I think it to be the better representation of the article subject. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Relationship to chuck schumer inaccurate

Amy's dad is first cousins with Chuck Schumer, making Amy and Chuck first cousins once removed, not second cousins. I'm not sure how to edit it. ~2026-38227-93 (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)