Talk:Debra Messing

British European Studio Group

During her junior year she studied theater at the prestigious British European Studio Group of London program, in England, an experience that fueled her desire to act.

What exactly is this British European Studio Group? Google doesn't seem to have heard of it except in this article. Flapdragon 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. Michael 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

IMDB says her last name was originally "Moessing." Is that true? Mike H. That's hot 09:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I get numerous google hits saying that her birth name was in fact "Debra Moessing" Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, they could've all taken it from the IMDB. Is there a first - hand source, like an interview? JackO'Lantern 09:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't exactly seem like something you'd talk about in an interview. "Oh, my last name had an o in it once." Mike H. That's hot 09:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I meant it could be something she mentions to an interviewer as part of the usual info (i.e. birthplace-fullname-date), who wouldn't use a direct quote. IMDB, like Wikipedia, gets their info from sources - with luck, they are good and accurate sources, but a lot of the IMDB's recent info comes from sources located exclusively within the info submitter's head. I think her original surname would've been mentioned in something like the Jewish Journal interview I just linked to, as that one goes a bit into her background. JackO'Lantern 09:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason her last name would have been spelt Moessing is if she is of german descent. I believe this and have kept trying to add it to the page but it keeps getting removed. In German, when writing words which normally have the umlaut accent mark over a vowel, an e is placed after the o, a, or u. Thus, her name would actually be Mössing but in the American alphabet and it's lack of accents it was probably changed over. cryingstarlet 21:35 21 July 2006

If she's of German decent, the name might have also originally been "Messing" which is German for brass - no alteration of spelling necessary. YggdrasilsRoot 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Claim of divorce on Daniel Zelman

Someone added a claim on Daniel Zelman that the couple were divorced; they didn't add a supporting reference, and I can't find one, so I guess it's a rumour or a hoax. As this article gets more visibility, can I ask regulars here to add Daniel Zelman to their watchlist, so similar claims can be caught before they've been up for more than a month. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Debra Messing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071023064143/http://tv.yahoo.com:80/the-starter-wife/show/39277/news/urn:newsml:tv.reuters.com:20071017:messing_dc__ER to http://tv.yahoo.com/the-starter-wife/show/39277/news/urn:newsml:tv.reuters.com:20071017:messing_dc__ER

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Debra Messing. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.toronto.com/article/716250--debra-messing-in-smash
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/614ten37o?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwif.org%2Fpast-recipients to http://wif.org/past-recipients
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307184903/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/tv/article63641017.html to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/tv/article63641017.html

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

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) 20:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Debra Messing. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wif.org/past-recipients
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104211047/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/186068-Gracing-Broadway-mdash-Debra-Messing-Returns-to-the-Stage-in-MTCs-Outside-Mullingar?tsrc=hph to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/186068-Gracing-Broadway-mdash-Debra-Messing-Returns-to-the-Stage-in-MTCs-Outside-Mullingar?tsrc=hph

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) 17:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Her new "East Wing" series

No mention of her "East Wing" series on Starz, which was conceived in 2020, but, apparently, never took off? Skaizun (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

In the personal life section, please change the phrasing of the part where it blatantly states as facts lies about the state of Israel. This is a celebrity bio page, not a hit piece, and should not be used for internet activism. 2601:602:9000:5C70:E00F:7F41:27B3:B32 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 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. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm insufficiently Wikipedian to format this correctly, but I noticed a typo in an URL in the references: hhttps://www.dailydot.com/debug/debra-messing-motaz-azaiza-evacuate-gaza-controversy/ has an (incorrect) double-h at the front, "hhttps" (which doesn't parse to most browsers) should be "https" 2601:645:500:EA00:4F5:121D:DE5E:6724 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing this out. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Twitter account

The Twitter account provided here appears to be illegitimate (or belonging to someone else with her name). Can this be changed? 12.189.143.19 (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Tik Tok call paragraph

This seems grossly WP:UNDUE to me:

In November 2023, amid growing criticism of the Israeli military, Messing was among more than a dozen creators and celebrities who confronted TikTok executives in a private phone call, during which she accused the site of being "the main platform for the dissemination of Jew hate". The company reportedly pushed back against claims that it was promoting pro-Palestine, anti-Israel content through its feeds, stating instead that while the platform regularly moderates anti-semitic, anti-Arab racist, and Islamophobic content, it does not moderate or amplify the spread of content that accuses Zionism of being settler colonialism, the alleged apartheid, or the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians. In December 2023, Messing was photographed supporting the Israeli military in the company of political commentator Douglas Murray.

References

The first ref (Nolan et al 2023) doesn't mention Messing. Am I overlooking something? If not, then it shouldn't be used.

The second (Maheshwari 2023) summarizes a statement she made:

Ms. Messing, who has more than 37,000 followers on TikTok, pressed executives on TikTok’s moderation of the pro-Palestinian slogan “from the river to the sea,” which many Americans regard as a call to eradicate Israel. It has been deemed antisemitic by the Anti-Defamation League and has appeared in messages and comments to many Jewish TikTok users, regardless of what they’re posting.

and quotes her:

Ms. Messing asked the company to reconsider its stance, saying: “It is much more responsible to bar it at this juncture than to say, ‘Oh, well, some people, they use it in a different way than it actually was created to mean.’ I understand that you are in a very, very difficult and complicated place, but you also are the main platform for the dissemination of Jew hate.”

If we can't find more refs of comparable or better quality, I think the content should be trimmed to a sentence.

The third re (Froim, 2023) briefly documents what looks to be a pr stunt. It seems ok for verifying the short sentence.

The fourth (Thalen 2024) is a poor source: WP:DAILYDOT. Given the article content, a summary of social media posts and responses, I don't think it should be used at all. --Hipal (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion. I attempted to summarize the coverage of her pro-Israel activism and take your points into account. I would like to add the following to the "Activism" section of this page:

Messing is a vocal supporter of Israel. Following the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, she gave a speech at the March for Israel in Washington, DC, in which she stated: “We will pray for the success of the IDF in a war Israel did not start and did not want, but a war Israel will win – because we must.” In a November 2023 video call between TikTok executives and Jewish celebrities, Messing criticized the platform's moderation policy of the phrase "from the river to the sea" and called TikTok “the main platform for the dissemination of Jew hate.” During her December 2023 trip to Israel, Messing visited the site of the Kfar Aza massacre and met with survivors of the attacks. She has also participated in several open letters, including one criticizing Jonathan Glazer’s Oscars acceptance speech and another opposing Bisan Owda’s Emmy nomination. Her Pro-Israel views have sparked backlash on social media as well as praise from Jewish organizations. The Jewish Chronicle included her as one of “The stars who came out for Israel in 2023”, while Hadassah named her one of “18 American Zionist Women You Should Know”.

Rainsage (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the additional sources.

Can we agree to not use those that are inappropriate for BLP or political content per WP:RSN discussions?

Can we agree to not use references that only mention Messing in passing?

Can we agree to not use references that are public relations pieces? --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a good summary of her activities. I'm open to hearing @Hipal's suggestions as to which specific sources should be omitted, but at a glance they all look appropriate to me. Unbandito (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Which references do you consider inappropriate and why? Rainsage (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I already identified three reasons why. Since no one objects to those reasons, let's see what refs we can use.

For the first sentence: The NPR ref looks fine to use. Throw out the other two for the reasons given. The sentence is misleading and needs to be rewritten. From what I'm seeing, Messing has been a vocal supporter of Israel since the 2023 Hamas-led attack. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with your rewrite of the first sentence.

I disagree that the other 2 sources are inappropriate. I don't understand how the 3 reasons you gave apply to these 2 sources specifically. Can you explain more? Rainsage (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking closer, though The Intercept piece mentions her in passing, it does make it clear that she's been vocal since the attack, which the NPR piece is vague on. It's useful for that.

The Times of Israel piece is a public relations piece at best. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok I added the sentence you suggested with the NPR and Intercept citations.

What about the Times of Israel piece makes it a "public relations piece"?

What do you think about the next sentence in my suggested paragraph? Rainsage (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The Times of Israel piece is likely just a warmed over press release, published in a country that is at war. What about it do you think is fit for use in an encyclopedia article?

"The next sentence" beginning, "Following the..."? I'd say to simply state she gave a speech there. That seems DUE. Quoting here gets into WP:QUOTE and WP:SOAP problems. Is it possible that there is a source that summarizes her speech that we could use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipal (talk • contribs) 01:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok I added the March for Israel without the quote. Any thoughts about the next sentence about TikTok? All 3 sources include the "main platform for the dissemination of Jew hate" quote.

The refs aren't very good. Rolling Stone should not be used. The Times of Israel piece doesn't add anything content-wise that's not treated at least slightly better by NYTimes, other than demonstrating weight. I'm looking for follow-up actions indicating that NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Still, a brief mention that she participated should be fine.

I'm looking to find actions by Tik Tok to https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-presses-tiktok-meta-x-crack-down-antisemitic-posts-bloomberg-news-reports-2024-05-28/ , but not finding any.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240201015018/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/01/business/shou-chew-tiktok-antisemitism.html seems to show that it wasn't of highest priority at Tik Tok.

Unless someone can find something else, let's keep it brief. --Hipal (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What else from my proposed paragraph are you ok with including? Why or why not? Rainsage (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, following up again. Would like to finish adding this content. Thanks! Rainsage (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't notice the two subsequent comment above. My apologies.

Since this discussion has been brought up below, how can we build from the discussion so far? Are there any new references that we can use? --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

no worries.

i think the main thing that is missing is her trip to Israel after October 7:

i would also like to add her recognition on Hadassah's 2024 list of "18 American Zionist women you should know" Rainsage (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Without refamiliarizing with everything in this discussion:

NPR puts the trip in the context of Creative Community for Peace involvement in it all. That appears DUE. The larger context, backlash for taking such stances also seems DUE though done with great care. --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

how about:

On a December 2023 trip to Israel organized by Creative Community for Peace, Messing met with the Israeli military and families of the hostages. Her social media posts about the Gaza war have been criticized by some users.

Rainsage (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems fine, without going into an UNDUE treatment.

I don't see that specific Newsweek ref as rising above the concerns of WP:NEWSWEEK, so I'd not include it.

The Times of Israel ref doesn't give any details, and I don't think it's needed to demonstrate due weight.

I'm not finding anything better to use. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

ok sounds good! i just added it. Rainsage (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Why are her comments about Zohran Mamdani being removed?

Hi all

I and aparently several other people have had good faith contributions reverted, it would be super helpful for non BLP writers if someone could clearly explain why they are being removed without the use of acronyms. Hopefully this will encourage higher quality contributions in future.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. At least three contentious topics areas apply. An understanding of the relevant policies is a requirement.

From the July 1 edit summary: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP, WP:HUFFPOLITICS. Could you please address them? Note that consensus for inclusion is required per BLP.

Briefly, the HuffPost ref should not be used at all. The NPR only mentions Messing in passing within an interview. Without far better sources, no mention of anything along the lines of what has been added is appropriate for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems like WP:HUFFPOLITICS refers to pre-2018 contributor content, which obviously doesn't apply to these 2025 comments about Mamdani. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

You're referring to WP:HUFFPOCON, not HUFFPOLITICS. --Hipal (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

My mistake, the link you provided doesn't redirect to the exact right spot on the table on mobile. In any event, an NPR source has been provided. I don't see any further good reason to exclude this material. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

And the NPR source is as I describe. It's a poor source, does not indicate any encyclopedic value, nor indicate any due weight. --Hipal (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems the several people you reverted would disagree. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal please can you explain what you mean by 'poor source'? The source both provides the information several people have added and is a perennially reliable source Wikipedia:RSPNPR. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean a source that probably should not be used in the context under dispute. In this case, failing the high standards required of BLP. Even if there weren't BLP issues on using interviews, interviews are almost always poor sources because they rarely provide the necessary broader context, fact-checking, and indication of significance. See WP:INTERVIEWS. --Hipal (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay, not a policy. But what it says is that editors ought to be careful when using interviewee comments to support information about the interviewees if those comments might be self-promotional. In this case, an NPR journalist is independently corroborating the existence of Messing's statements, which are fairly easy to verify since she posted them publicly and they are still up as of the time of this comment. The context in which this takes place happens to be an interview with Mamdani, but that has no bearing on the reliability of the statement in question. Frankly, I don't even think that the burden of proof is so high that Huffpo is an insufficiently reliable source to verify the existence of Messing's public comments on Mamdani. The NPR source is more than acceptable. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". The full context from the interview is:

You know, the thing that was very clear in the weeks before and the days after the primary was this barrage of racist, anti-Muslim attacks on you, equating you to a terrorist, saying you're a danger to the safety of Americans, especially Jewish Americans. I'm going to repeat some of the attacks, not because I think they're okay to say, but I want listeners to understand what's being said. And it's not just from the right wing and Republicans in office. It's also from other influential figures. Deborah Messing of Will & Grace posted online that you sided with terrorists and you celebrated 9/11. You were nine when that happened. Republican Rep. Nancy Mace posted a picture of you in your Eid outfit and wrote, "After 9/11 we said, "Never Forget." I think we sadly have forgotten." Republican Rep. Andy Ogles called you "little Muhammad," and said you need to be deported, and is calling for your denaturalization. Were you prepared for this level of bigotry?

If we included anything, we should only work from this reference, so what do we include? That Fadel cited Messing's post as an example of racist, anti-Muslim attacks and bigotry against Mamdani? That's the encyclopedic context, and I don't see how it's important to an encyclopedic understanding of Messing without a ref that actually discusses Messing directly. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

To put it as simply as I possibly can, I think that most Wikipedia readers would like to know the views of public figures on important issues of the day when those figures have commented publicly on said issues. The policies you are invoking here are intended to exclude trivial, tabloid-quality gossip items and the like. I want to know that Melvil Dewey was a racist and an antisemite, I want to know that Tom Seaver opposed the Vietnam war. Even though those beliefs have nothing to do with their subjects' careers, their relationship to the important issues of their day is significant in its own right. The altogether 5 editors you reverted who added some version of this material seem to agree. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that most Wikipedia readers... No, per NOT, POV, and 5P.

...are intended to exclude trivial. If you're referring to what I've indicated, NOTNEWS, BLP, and RS, then you are greatly mistaken.

You don't speak for other editors, and misrepresenting what they've done as supporting your viewpoints is disruptive. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I found this conversation on the basis of the WP:BLP/N posting. I would like to note that the views of one BLP on another BLP should be excluded when that first BLP has no real grounds for their views to be significant. Frankly it's irrelevant what an actor thinks of a mayoral politician. Her views on Mamdani are not central enough to her or to him to be worth repeating here. WP:NOTTRIVIA. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair argument, and one I'd be willing to concede if consensus shapes up this way. I guess I would push back on your assertion that her views are irrelevant just a little bit. I agree her views are irrelevant as an actual assessment of Mamadani. I wouldn't dream of putting her biased and inaccurate comments on his page. However I think that the views of influential public figures have some relevance to the public interest when the issue at hand is important enough, even if they have no expertise or reason to be commenting on said issue. In this case, I think Messing's comments are notable as an example of elite sentiment toward the Gaza war in the United States. I'm not particularly attached to her comments about Mamdani, but I do feel that this page altogether under-represents her views on this topic. I think some or all of @Rainsage's proposed edits from the above talk topic should have been accepted. What do you think about those, @Simonm223? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that paragraph, detailing Messing's advocacy around Israel in a specific context of her advocacy as part of her career is definitely more due than her opinions on Mamdani specifically. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I feel like her comments on Mamdani are more notable in the context of her repeated, vocal public comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but I can see how the Mamdani material would appear out of place when the rest of her related views have also been excluded. Would you agree or disagree that the context of her broader advocacy makes inclusion of her Mamdani comments more due? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree. The proposed paragraph suggests advocacy for Israel is a part of Messing's career - but her views on a mayoral candidate on the basis of her perception of his views of Israel is just too tangential to either to be due. Mamdani is running for a position that would infer absolutely no foreign policy role. Frankly his personal opinions about Israel (which seem to mostly boil down to "genocide is bad") are somewhat immaterial to him as a BLP subject so her opinion of his views is kind of doubly distant. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It would be a far better sign of relevance to this page if it were material found in a properly sourced article about Messing', rather than a single sentence in an article about Mamadani. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This Huffington Post article about Messing's comments (which includes some other material exploring the controversy related to her comments and Mamdani's views) is what was originally used to source this material. Hipal reverted that edit, and the NPR source was proposed as a more reliable substitute. The NPR version and a version combining the NPR, Huffpo and another New Yorker article was also reverted by Hipal. Do you think that the Huffpo article is insufficiently reliable to be used in this context? I don't see anything obviously wrong with it, but I could be missing something. Do you think that any combination of these sources is adequate to justify the inclusion of this material? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:HUFFPOLITICS, as described in the second comment to this discussion.

How does the New Yorker article addresses any of the concerns so far? --Hipal (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that under WP:HUFFPOLITICS, the Huffpo coverage is insufficient to establish inclusion is WP:DUE for a WP:BLP. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that position. I would agree that material mentioned only in a Huffpo article would be insufficiently due for inclusion. However, I would also note that what WP:HUFFPOLITICS specifically says is that there is no consensus for its reliability and that editors agree that it is biased. I would interpret this to mean that if a Huffpo article is corroborated by other reliable sources, the material it describes might be sufficiently notable for inclusion. My case for inclusion would be that since the more extensive Huffpo article is corroborated by the mention of her comments in the New Yorker and by NPR, those three sources combined would establish due weight for the material.

I also think that the material is decontextualized here, and thus appears less notable, because the inclusion a broader paragraph about Messing's advocacy for Israel was also contested. @NatGertler, do you have a position on the inclusion of @Rainsage's proposed paragraph from the previous discussion, or some version of it? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have not spent time on the paragraph aspect of the issue. I will note that the "bias" concern goes very much to the question of whether the remarks were truly important enough to merit an article, or whether that's just pursuit of an agenda. So HuffPo is not a good basis for indicating that the material is due for inclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The New Yorker article appears to be an opinion, so not useable at all. --Hipal (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hipal, could you point to the policy that says this? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I would expect an editor of your background to understand that opinion pieces are generally inappropriate for use in WP:BLP articles. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm actually not seeing anything about opinion pieces on the WP:BLP page either. Of course, presenting an author's opinion as fact is always forbidden, but we're not doing that here. In this case I do think the New Yorker article demonstrates that a prominent essayist considers Messing's comments notable and worthy of discussion. I know that some policy somewhere also prohibits or discourages the use of opinion pieces to source facts, but in this case the Huffpo article, even if it can't establish notability on its own, verifies her comments by linking directly to her Instagram, where they are still publicly available. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLP should be clearer. WP:RS has WP:RSOPINION. WP:BLPGOSSIP is similar, though general. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Identifying the BLPN entry: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Debra_Messing#Why_are_her_comments_about_Zohran_Mamdani_being_removed? --Hipal (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is an additional source, I think we now have more than enough sources. NatGertler, Monk of Monk Hall, Simonm223, Hipal, do you agree? John Cummings (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

That's the same Huffington Post source already discussed just reposted by AOL, so, no. Simonm223 (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223, sorry, I didn't see it was just recycled from another source, I know Microsoft do that a lot but didn't realise AOL does as well. John Cummings (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

AOL do it ubiquitously, unfortunately. Things like that and the Microsoft page are part of why journalism is a zombie profession. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

To avoid bludgeoning my point this will be my last comment on the Mamdani material, but just to be clear I think that the combined Huffpo, NPR and New Yorker sources are altogether sufficient to meet the verifiability and notability requirements for this page. That being said, I am sympathetic to @Simonm223's point that Mamdani's own views on Israel shouldn't be considered too relevant, since he's a municipal politician, and that this makes Messing's comments doubly irrelevant. However, I think it's also important to analyze her comments from the angle of New York politics, as she invokes the memory of 9/11 and makes claims about police funding which are directly relevant to his municipal political positions and views. It's unclear where Messing currently resides, but her page says she was an NYC resident at the time of 9/11 so this does seem like it could be a New Yorker's position on a New York politician's views regarding New York events and policies. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Monk of Monk Hall that there should be more content about her pro-Israel activism in this section, per my previous discussion with Hipal. If there is something else someone would like to propose, please do. However, I agree with Simonm223 and Hipal that this particular content about Zohran Mamdani is not due. I don't think we should add random controversial things someone says on their social media, especially not with this quality of sourcing. Rainsage (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

For reference :

In 2025 she claimed that Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City "celebrated 9/11" and that he "sides with terrorists".

References

Note that the Yahoo News ref is just a copy of the HuffPost ref. --Hipal (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

November update

The recent refs are better, but the content is clearly contentious content falling under WP:CT/AP, WP:CT/PIA, and WP:CT/BLP :

Messing supported Andrew Cuomo in the 2025 election for Mayor of New York City and on the eve of the election reposted multiple Islamophobic memes against Zohran Mamdani, Cuomo's rival, including one labeling him as a "Communist Jihadist".

References

Note that the USAToday ref specifically says, "Debra Messing is coming under fire for sharing Islamophobic memes targeted at New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani." --Hipal (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this topic is covered by PIA, which means that non-ECR users shouldn't be editing or discussing this topic. Relatedly, I'm wondering if we should mention in the article that Messing opposes Mamdani because of his pro-Palestine stance.

i don't have a strong opinion on whether to say the memes were islamophobic in wikivoice. The Independent doesn't use its own voice in the article in Ref#2 to call the memes islamophobic, instead calling them "offensive". It does call them islamophobic in this article that is primarily about another topic . The Toronto Sun calls them "controversial" in the article and "islamophobic" in the subheadline (unreliable per WP:Headline). Rainsage (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment by non-ECR editor

I don't think there is enough to be able to say she opposes Mamdani for his pro-Palestinian stance. One could as easily say she opposes him because he lacks experience, as she has stated, or because he is unwilling to say that he thinks Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, or because of his socialist beliefs, which some of her posts have alluded to. Saying she opposes him because of his pro-Palestinians stance is editorializing, not reporting.

The USA Today line is describing attacks on Messing, how she is coming under fire for her reposting and what is being said against her; it is not substantive enough to say that the article in US Today has evaluated her posts and decided they were Islamophobic. It is explaining the fire against her, not evaluating the substance of her comments. Leaving aside the knotty question of whether criticism of or opposition to the Palestinian cause should be equated with being against Islam, and recognizing that Mamdani is not of Palestinian or Middle Eastern descent. Bob Gollum (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Without references that demonstrate any lasting importance to Messing, best leave it out. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

We have sources from July and sources from November regarding her views of Mamdani. The 9/11 thing also got a brief mention in NYT.

If her opposition to him continues to be covered, would you change your mind? Rainsage (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:SEETALK

The discussion before this November update subsection indicates why the June and July brief mentions were rejected.

I've already indicated that the situation would change with sources that demonstrate lasting importance to Messing. --Hipal (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I agreed with you in the previous discussion. I just am not sure what you mean by “lasting importance”. Rainsage (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

References that clearly meet BLPs requirements, supporting content clearly encyclopedic and due mention, per NOT and POV. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It's frankly absurd to say one "could as easily say she opposes him because he lacks experience", when she's calling Mamdani a jihadi who rejoiced in the 9/11 attacks, Bob Gollum. And the USA Today is calling her content Islamophobic and is doing so in its own voice – not putting the term in quotes or employing any other artifice to distance itself from its usage. I understand the arguments against placing her aggressive smearing of Mamdani into the entry at the moment, but we should refrain of advocating for her comments here as well, including by trying to make them look more reasonable than they are. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I voted for [Andrew Cuomo] because we need someone with experience** to bring our city back to what it should be.... Our city is too massive, complex, and consequential to have someone 33 years old who has never held a job, and missed 80% of his votes as Councilman. Perhaps with more experience. But not now."

Debra Messing on Instagram, Oc 25 2025.

The jihadi comment was a repost of someone else's words; the experience quote is her own words. ~2025-33635-85 (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For me it's clear Messing's motivation in smearing Mamdani is defending Israel. But it's a bad look to say one voted on local US elections based on one's loyalty to Israel, and even worse to attack Mamdani's religion with one's own words; she must know that. So she reposts other people's extreme rhetoric, instead. Someone who's solely opposed to Mamdani on the grounds of his alleged lack of experience, would not be endorsing posts calling him "Osama bin Mamdani" or saying that a vote for him is a vote for "terrorism". The hostility is too intense, and the bigoted reposts too numerous, for this to be truly about Mamdani's resume. Media coverage also describes Messing's social media commentary as Islamophobic and the content she reposts as reflecting her own views. Should her behavior be acknowledged in the entry in the future, this is how it be should described; we must not pretend her hostile comments have been measured and totally unrelated to Mamdani's religion and sympathy for Palestinians, as this is clearly not true and is not what media are saying, either. Anyway, this is enough debate this subject -- editors shouldn't be employ the Talk page to discuss their opinions on the issues of the day. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I will leave you with a few of her words that might allow you to see her in a more sympathetic light:

“What is happening in Gaza is devastating. Any loss of life is devastating. War is devastating. The thing that has been very hard to understand is how people can’t seem to hold two things at once – how you can be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel at the same time.” Bob Gollum (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Allure photoshoot

Trying to understand the rationale for deleting the sentence about this photo shoot, which has been part of the article for many moons. It is not about a paparazzi intrusion into her privacy, but about a tastefully done and carefully posed photoshoot, written up in multiple sources. I agree that it was offensive to include it under her "personal life" section; that is why it was moved.

If you take time to read the BLP, you will see that it does not apply here. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

BLP states in its lede: Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. A simple review of WP:RSP shows that none of the new sources are appropriate to use. --Hipal (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Last I looked, CNN with Anderson Cooper was a reliable source.US Weekly is reasonably reliable, certainly for this kind of information. International Business Times may be problematic; but if so, remove that cite.

Again, I did not insert this sentence; it has been in the article for along time without objection, and with fewer cites. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You are wrong in the assessment of the sources. Please review RSP. --Hipal (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

CNN is reliable. US there is no consensus on but is reliable for some purposes, No one complains about Allure. What am I missing? Bob Gollum (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

So you have reviewed RSP and are not disputing all the other sources that you added? --Hipal (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not disputing any of the sources; that is why I included them. have no problem removing any problematic sources. I generally find the Daily Mail controversial but reliable; they don't like getting sued. There seems to be disagreement over that one. This particular sentence has been on the article without any reference other than the primary source for a long time.

This particular point is not one that I would have inserted into the article myself. But I think of wikipedia as a collective enterprise, not my personal sandbox, and don't believe in censoring other people's contributions if they are accurate and factual. I moved the sentence within the article to where it was more appropriate. Bob Gollum (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I generally find the Daily Mail controversial but reliable: For commonly used sources, we have already established consensus (i.e. discussion) that has determined the reliability or lack thereof of a source. In the case of Daily Mail, it is deprecated (meaning: should not be used). See: WP:DAILYMAIL. Similarly, WP:IBTIMES is considered unreliable. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The information is backed up by other reliable secondary sources. The additional sources are there to satisfy hipal's new-found concern about notability.

The Daily Mail is often very good about its reporting, in the articles I have read there, but I recognize that other people disagree, and there is no doubt they go for sensationalism. Bob Gollum (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I should add, as I have tried to point out, that I don't have a horse in this race. The edit was put into the article by another editor; I am the one trying to achieve a compromise on it. Bob Gollum (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

It does not really matter what you personally think about the quality of a source listed at WP:RSP - those have been discussed and consensus achieved. So, you have two primary sources, two unusable sources, and one that is questionable. WP:OVERCITE issues aside, you can't use the unusable sources, neither should you use the two primary sources. That leaves one that would be (marginally) citable. You're welcome to argue for inclusion, but the WP:ONUS is on you to show how this overcomes WP:BLPSOURCES. Until then, BLPSOURCES would require that it be removed unless there is consensus that it is adequately sourced. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

What I personally think does matter - that is the nature of consensus. Wikipedia has gone back and forth over the Daily Mail. But as I said before, I agree with you about the use of the Daily Mail as a source of information, given where the consensus stands now.

The CNN piece includes statements by Debra Messing herself, but it also reports on the Allure piece. It is not a primary source.

The real issue here is whether or not the material should be considered contentious, and there is no reason to think it could be. Bob Gollum (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way, if you look at the revision history you will see that the line was originally added by Tmorw on October 30 2021. It has been here ever since without objection. That does speak to consensus on this matter. Bob Gollum (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

If this is the nature of the dispute, there is no CNN source.

The real issue here is whether or not the material should be considered contentious - if that's the case, then since this thread has been about sources, I would suggest you open a new discussion specific to whether it merits inclusion. If it's just you and @Hipal at that point and you're deadlocked, you'd have a clean two-party discussion if WP:3PO were necessary. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The source was Anderson Live; you are right that it is not CNN, although Anderson Cooper is a recognized CNN personality. Anderson's reliability has never been questioned.

As I have said, I have no pony in this race. This is an old line to which hipal had no objection until he saw my name being attached to the placement shift. Bob Gollum (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Regardless - reliability isn't at issue with that one. It's a primary source. And if you don't have a pony in this race then the obvious course of action is to leave what Hipal reverted and see what comes of it. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.

Why do you think it is a primary source? It is no different from any other secondary source that includes quotes from the subject as part of a longer piece. Anderson documents the Allure piece, it is not just an interview. Bob Gollum (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Ahhh... yes, that would be a secondary source. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that this should be treated as an op/ed, and so of no help for BLP content. --Hipal (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

That is a bit confusing - if you are saying it should be treated as an op/ed, you are acknowledging that it is not an op/ed.

Looking at the Anderson piece, it is reporting on the story. He doesn't really express his own opinions in it; certainly his take on the subject is not the focus of the piece. It is reporting, not an op/ed. Bob Gollum (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

No offense, but this is not the place to educate editors on policy and general consensus. I've lost my patience with you after having to repeatedly point out BLP and RSP, to have them ignored over and over. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Can't say as I am ignoring them. It is that I disagree with your interpretation of them, as do others. When I think you are misapplying them, I have carefully explained why. I would hope you would give myself and other editors the same courtesy. There is no general consensus, as far as I can see, on Anderson Live, and in any event what would apply to one piece on his show would not necessarily apply to other pieces, just as a newspaper can contain both news reporting and op/eds. Bob Gollum (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. --Hipal (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Tisch School section

A sentence of this article states that Tisch only accepts 16 students a year, I think this needs a citation. ~2026-29753-38 (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. It needs a citation that specifically mentions Messing. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 6 July 2026

Can you add her to Jews from Rhode Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-34536-08 (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)