User talk:MarnetteD/archive21

691:

are chosen for female roles and actors for male roles. Boys play boys. Women play women. That’s just the way it is, unless the director is deliberately looking for some unusual, perhaps comic, effect. Men do not get to play Cleopatra. Women do not get to play James Bond. Of course this was not always the case - in Shakespeare’s times women were typically played by young men or boys. So fashions change. But in the current era, to describe a woman as “an actress” is not to suggest that she can’t act as well as a man (in the role of a man or a woman). Or even that she necessarily acts “differently”. It’s simply saying that she is a woman and she will thus (primarily) act a female role. It’s her very womanliness that enables her do that. Now you may argue that in the acting profession male actors earn more money, or more respect, or more success than, do actresses (although this does not seem to be necessarily the case). But that’s another altogether separate question. And I would argue it’s not a state of affairs that will ever be altered by simply choosing to describe all actresses as “actors”.

786:

have both those that work in front and behind camera use the term actor for both sexes. Two, (I know it may well seem that I have already gone beyond this number but I am wrapping things up) the term actress did not exist until the 1660's and it is now in the process of disappearing again. No doubt I will never change your mind and you certainly wont change mine so let me just say again thank you for your time. As someone who is a volunteer here and doesn't usually like to spend this much time on one thing I am tired of this (most definitely my fault not yours) so after you have read this I will be archiving the whole thing along with several other threads here. I hope that the rest of your summer is a pleasant one.

765:. She was the best person for the part. As to the James bond reference - and I'm afraid that you set yourself up for this - remind me again what sex was M in the books and the Connery/Moore films and has the series been damaged by the switch in the gender of the person playing the role in the last several years. Also actors often play roles (both onscreen and onstage) that aren't anywhere close to their actual age. One of the most impressive example of this for me is Pheobe Nicholls in the TV version of Brideshead Revisited. She was in her mid twenties when the series was made. She played Cordelia Flyte as a tweenager and then as a spinster in her late 30's/early 40's. She was brilliant at both. 770:

example though - in one of the discussions about this at the MoS talk page an editor suddenly started referring to me as she. Up to that point my gender had never been a part of the discussion but choosing one (the incorrect one BTW) made my stance easier to dismiss. Lastly, you and others point out that the actor situation is not mentioned specifically at the gender neutral section of the MoS. I would state that almost no specific words are mentioned there. The reason that the guideline exists is to encourage movement away from the power problems of gender specific language.

718:. It’s the same news and the same programme regardless of the gender of the presenter. And there are, of course, real issues where sexism and ageism interact in the media – there are fewer positions for older women, regardless of how their job titles are described. That said, the television and radio audience does often seem to have fixed ideas as to who are “appropriate” presenters are in different contexts. Perhaps this is society’s entrenched sexism at work. But it’s not the same thing as accurately describing a performer as either "an actor" or "an actress". 31: 629:. While sold as a comedy it is actually a loving tribute to all those who work on stage and off to give us "members of the audience" the magic of their craft. Of course, it might not interest you and/or you might not like it. Should you find the article interesting it might be worth tracking down the first season at least. 769:

You may never be able to understand the use and abuse of power in the nature of gender specific language. The origin of differing terms for male and female is rooted in the need for power but I don't expect you to ever understand this. You wont be the first or last in that regard. I do have an onwiki

756:

Fine this wall of text is a bit tiring but I appreciate the amount of time that you put in on it. I feel that things are already moving beyond this. As I point out on Ms W's talk page several shows (both entertainment and documentary) on both sides of the pond are now using the term actor to identify

593:

No you have missed the point completely. Some day the term actor will be the only one used for disambiguating a persons article. Unfortunately, for me, that will be after my time and you all will probably have computer chips in your head and edit by blinking your eyes. On another note I apologize for

430:

Thanks for your question. That statement at the template is the one that I have always used. IMO it's fairly clear but I understand the allowances that you are giving it. It is just infobox clutter to have the same name in there twice. If you think that it should be even more specific you might start

849:

First, the power involved in gender specific language is way beyond just whether actor is the only term used. Second, other editors in other threads have stated that they feel that the UK is leading, not following, in this situation and the evidence that I have seen backs this up. That also leads to

737:

these are words borrowed from the French language, where there are gender forms for all or most nouns, not just for people and for some of their job titles. Do French speakers regard the use of feminine terms as sexist? Some languages, such as Welsh, even mutate adjectives to match the gender of the

578:

Well, I'm not discussing poets and poetesses, which is an interesting area in itself. For the moment I'm concerned with actors and actresses. You seem to be suggesting that, like Emily, the notability of certain actresses might eventually lead them to not need any disambiguation. But that's going to

560:

towards from the gender neutrality when that article was written. Erik started a discussion about this awhile ago and the upshot was that there are editors that wont be able to give up using the sexist terminology of the past. The change may not happen in my time of editing here but you can bet your

316:

of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page.

828:

I am quite happy to use a word originating in the 1660s. Its etymological origin is utterly irrelevant to common usage. I would not be at all surprised if, before too long, none of Knowledge articles for US actors will use the term "actress". This might even arise from a perception that use of that

690:

I'd say the situation is wholly different. And it’s not just that actress is still in perfectly common usage. I would argue that the acting profession is essentially and unavoidably sexist (and ageist for that matter). This is because gender and age are basic and inescapable human traits. Actresses

622:

Thanks for your message. I may be able to discuss it down the road but I am worn out from things here and offline at the moment. I will say that - as a child of the sixties - there are things I grew up saying and doing that I am now appalled at. I have also seen the effects of the unthinking use of

594:

anything that I say that may upset you. I know that you are a good editor who has wikipedia's best interests at heart. I have taken Ms Wanamaker's page off my watchlist so I hope that you will keep it on yours to revert any vandalism that may come along. Cheers and have a good week on wiki and off.

516:

I agree with your edit of the Roman Catholic thing, but thought you might be interested to know that Adams was a member of Good Shepherd Roman Catholic Church in Beverly Hills for many years and his private funeral service was held there. But that's from my personal knowledge, and isn't citable as

854:

and IMO we should follow their lead. I know I started with this so I will wrap it up this way too - is anyone confused when Emily Dickinson is referred to as a poet or Agatha Christie as an author. The gender specific term for both these women's profession was used in my lifetime - it is now gone.

824:

Sure, there are exceptions in the acting world, in terms of gender and age cross-overs. But these are notable for their rarity. In general actresses have female roles and actors have male roles. To make this clearer by using gender specific descriptors has nothing to do with "the need for power".

785:

which shows the error in thinking that the UK is somehow behind in this process. If it is on You Tube just look at the opening of any recent years of "The Screen Actors Guild Awards" wherein the women all introduce themselves as actors. As I have state before the commentaries for the Mad Men DVDs

678:

should generally be replaced by a neutral term such as “Head teacher” or simply “Head”. Gender specific terms should not be used in occupational titles if gender has, or should have, no bearing on performance in that occupation. The case is slightly different where there is a female-only variant

679:

title, i.e. where the male variant is also used to cover both genders, as with author/ authoress and poet/ poetess. But I also agree with you over these two - that “authoress” and “poetess” are now just outdated and old-fashioned, i.e., the female variant has ceased to exist in common usage.

757:

men and women. Your description of actors show is a bit narrow IMO. First and formost, just because actors play their gender more often then not does not mean that we need two different terms to describe them. Second, though you allow for this a bit in your statement, the current revival of

496:

No it isn't. The middle name does not alter the name of the article, nor does it make a given persons name different, and the mention of it in the lead is sufficient to cover its fact. If you need to discuss this further I will suggest that you take it to the talk page for the template.

607:

No need to apologize, thank you. And you certainly haven't upset me (though not so sure about Will). But I am quite keen to discuss actors and actresses in general with you, especially since your edits on this matter are certainly not limited to this article, are they? Thanks.

536:

I have read Knowledge's policy on Gender-neutral language yet again but I still don't see any clear advice that actor should always be used instead of actress. If that were indeed Knowledge policy, how do you explain such article titles as this one

431:

a discussion on the talk page for the template and you can certainly point the editors that are insisting on putting the name in to that template and any discussion that you start. I hope that this is of some help and I apologize if it isn't.

802:

Please note there is an edit conflict here so I am responding to your initial post before any updating - this may cause some of my words to be out of date and I am just to spent to go back through it. Again my apologies for this.

480:

Couldnt help but notice this convo, but you both are misinterpreting stuff. A birth name is a person's first, middle and last name. It would be different if they had no middle name, then it would be pointless to include there.

829:

word is sexist. But I also believe that it would then be quite mistaken to assume that the continued preference for its use in the UK denotes some kind of sexist intention on the part of UK editors. It doesn't. Thanks.

872:

I'm sorry you feel you have to archive this discussion immediately. If it's too long, perhaps you could consdier a drop-down box to hide it? I was only just getting started. But before I go - what about

709:

is less clear. Although, again, fashion seems to have moved here. And I don’t think the argument extends to other media roles such as television newsreader, or radio presenter – we certainly don’t want

850:

my last point and then I really am closing this down. I continually present dictionary, style guide and other real world examples that the change is/has occurring/ed. These all meet the criteria for

565:

that merits an article here that the more famous ones page wont be dismbiguated with the word "poetess" and indeed the word is not used in her article now - though it would have been 60 years ago.

877:, for example? I'm sure she calls herself "une actice", as do most of the people who have ever talked or written about her. The correct translation of this word is "actress", isn't it? Thanks. 270:

You do realize that I can't stop looking at Red Nose Day clips on YouTube, and it's all your fault, don't you? It's been a stressful couple of work weeks, and I do appreciate the laughs.

670:

I fully agree with you that Knowledge should use gender neutral descriptions where otherwise there might be some underlying question of sexism or gender bias. So, for example, the terms

642:

That is very thoughtful of you MarnetteD. I will try and read that. You are to be admired for your honest and genuine approach. I hope we can discuss at some other time. Regards.

667:

Please allow me to set out my basic fundamental objection to your approach? You may then choose to respond at your leisure. There really is no urgency from my point of view.

444:

Ah I see that you have already informed the other editor of the template talk page. Good job. You are also free to ask for further clarification at the talk page for the

773:

I will close by making two more points. One, as stated in our article for actor, in a survey of a "wide cross-section of current British English", compiled in 2010,

200: 117: 73: 312: 214:. I have found him to be very good at tracking birth info down. However, I can't guarantee that he will have the time or the inclination to take a look. Cheers. 408:; as such, I was wondering whether you know if there is an extant guideline on how the "birth name" field is used, other than the ill-defined statement made at 623:

terminology that causes harm. I have to stop now because it is welling up inside again. On another note I recently purchased and watched the Canadian series

83:

The no wiki command is for when you want to prevent an item like a link ] from working. What you needed to use is the hidden message command

694:

Of course they may be exceptions, where individuals have made it clear that they wish to be called "an actors" instead of "an actresses"£ But I think these

482: 210:

Your research seems pretty good. I don't know that I have anything to add as I have not studied this wonderful performer very much. You might try asking

886: 838: 651: 637: 617: 602: 588: 573: 375: 490: 424: 222: 174: 121: 92: 505: 470: 439: 761:

on Broadway shows that crossover roles do occur and it is not always for effect. Perhaps the best example of this is Linda Hunt as Billy Kwan in

863: 811: 456: 404:

and am now involved in a dispute over the use of the "birth name" field of the infobox. Examining the article history, I see that you made

330: 395: 390: 357: 750: 550: 341: 382: 349: 794: 204: 305: 296: 196: 113: 69: 260: 526: 462: 416: 279: 243: 77: 367:. The picture had very little to do with Mr Head. It was about the TV show and could go in an article about the show. 300: 326: 247: 855:

This will occur with regard to actors too and it could easily be accomplished in the UK before it does so here.

405: 364: 38: 363:

To familiarize yourself with the ins and outs of the use of pictures you should probably start here

882: 834: 746: 647: 613: 584: 546: 386: 353: 335: 290: 782: 409: 486: 466: 420: 239: 101:

Slap my forehead and now its red. Of course! I forgot that one. Thanks. Use it or lose it.

531: 322: 522: 265: 159: 8: 878: 860: 830: 808: 791: 742: 643: 634: 609: 599: 580: 570: 542: 538: 502: 453: 445: 436: 372: 219: 170: 89: 47: 17: 293: 211: 825:

Characters whose gender is ambiguous may be successfully played by both men and women.

874: 625: 511: 275: 251: 234: 186: 318: 228: 155: 741:

Any way I'd be very interested to hear your response to my argument. Many thanks.

562: 518: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

856: 804: 787: 630: 595: 566: 498: 449: 432: 368: 255: 215: 192: 163: 85: 59: 561:

bottom dollar, pound, yen, Euro or whatever that should there ever be another

284: 65: 851: 345: 271: 401: 64:

I just tried to use the nowiki command in the References section of the

698:

exceptions to a current normal usage rule. At least in the UK, anyway.

400:

Hello. I've been monitoring and editing the article on the late

130:

Unfortunately it's something that we have no control over... the

112:

IF it was titled "notext" or "hide" I might have remembered it.

729:, the distinction between which might be pretty vital. But like 150:

and several other markup languages - it dates back at least to

556:

Because naming conventions did not take into account the move

191:

I was wondering if you wanted to weigh in on my questions on

147: 68:

article and it does not seem to work any longer. Any ideas?

348:? Was it the wrong people or the wrong section or... what? 151: 139: 143: 448:

project as well as the actors and filmmakers project.

138:

construct is one of the basic unalterable features of

233:

Thanks. I am also accepting Tigers on my user page.--

461:Thanks for your input, it is appreciated. -- 292:Or, feel free to watch the whole thing. :) ← 84:. I have placed it in that section for you. 14: 777:was almost twice as commonly found as 342:File:Buffy The Vampire Slayer cast.jpg 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 25: 396:Birth name in Infoboxes/Roy Skelton 23: 579:be a bit 'hit and miss' isn't it? 24: 900: 701:By contrast, I think the case of 29: 759:The Importance of Being Earnest 763:The Year of Living Dangerously 289:Go to about 4:10 of this clip. 13: 1: 7: 306:WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter 10: 905: 365:Knowledge:Image use policy 887:07:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC) 864:00:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC) 839:23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 812:23:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 795:23:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 751:21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 652:23:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 638:23:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 618:23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 603:22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 589:22:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 574:22:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 551:19:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 527:06:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 506:19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 491:19:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 471:18:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 457:17:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 440:17:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 425:17:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 391:09:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC) 376:01:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC) 358:01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC) 331:01:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC) 301:18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC) 280:08:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC) 261:01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 223:00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 205:23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 175:10:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 122:23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 93:17:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 78:06:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 783:British National Corpus 410:Template:Infobox person 721:I’m also unsure about 160:the W3C recommendation 42:of past discussions. 781:. This is from the 539:Liz Smith (actress) 18:User talk:MarnetteD 344:inappropriate for 212:User talk:Gamaliel 875:Catherine Deneuve 626:Slings and Arrows 317:--Happy editing! 259: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 896: 336:Anthony Head pic 237: 166: 156:HTML comment tag 142:, also found in 137: 33: 32: 26: 904: 903: 899: 898: 897: 895: 894: 893: 563:Emily Dickinson 534: 514: 398: 340:How was adding 338: 308: 287: 268: 231: 189: 164: 131: 62: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 902: 892: 891: 890: 889: 879:Martinevans123 867: 866: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 831:Martinevans123 826: 817: 816: 815: 814: 767: 766: 743:Martinevans123 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 644:Martinevans123 610:Martinevans123 581:Martinevans123 543:Martinevans123 533: 530: 513: 510: 509: 508: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 397: 394: 383:71.234.215.133 379: 378: 350:71.234.215.133 337: 334: 313:May 2011 issue 307: 304: 286: 283: 267: 264: 230: 227: 226: 225: 193:talk:Myrna Loy 188: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 134:hidden comment 125: 124: 105: 104: 103: 102: 96: 95: 61: 58: 56: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 901: 888: 884: 880: 876: 871: 870: 869: 868: 865: 862: 858: 853: 848: 847: 840: 836: 832: 827: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 813: 810: 806: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 793: 789: 784: 780: 776: 771: 764: 760: 755: 754: 753: 752: 748: 744: 739: 736: 732: 728: 724: 719: 717: 713: 712:newsreaderess 708: 704: 699: 697: 692: 689: 685: 680: 677: 673: 668: 653: 649: 645: 641: 640: 639: 636: 632: 628: 627: 621: 620: 619: 615: 611: 606: 605: 604: 601: 597: 592: 591: 590: 586: 582: 577: 576: 575: 572: 568: 564: 559: 555: 554: 553: 552: 548: 544: 540: 532:Female actors 529: 528: 524: 520: 507: 504: 500: 495: 494: 493: 492: 488: 484: 472: 468: 464: 460: 459: 458: 455: 451: 447: 443: 442: 441: 438: 434: 429: 428: 427: 426: 422: 418: 413: 411: 407: 403: 393: 392: 388: 384: 377: 374: 370: 366: 362: 361: 360: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 333: 332: 328: 324: 320: 315: 314: 303: 302: 298: 295: 294:Baseball Bugs 291: 282: 281: 277: 273: 263: 262: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 236: 224: 221: 217: 213: 209: 208: 207: 206: 202: 198: 197:4.240.117.157 194: 176: 172: 168: 161: 157: 154:in 1986. See 153: 149: 145: 141: 135: 129: 128: 127: 126: 123: 119: 115: 114:4.240.117.157 111: 110: 109: 108: 107: 106: 100: 99: 98: 97: 94: 91: 87: 82: 81: 80: 79: 75: 71: 70:4.240.117.254 67: 66:Albert Sieber 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 778: 774: 772: 768: 762: 758: 740: 734: 730: 726: 722: 720: 716:presenteress 715: 711: 706: 702: 700: 695: 693: 687: 683: 681: 676:Headmistress 675: 671: 669: 666: 624: 557: 535: 515: 483:Thewildone85 479: 463:88.104.35.41 446:WP:BIOGRAPHY 417:88.104.35.41 414: 399: 380: 346:Anthony Head 339: 311: 309: 288: 269: 266:Red Nose Day 235:TonyTheTiger 232: 190: 133: 63: 55: 43: 37: 415:Regards, -- 402:Roy Skelton 381:Thank you. 319:Nehrams2020 36:This is an 735:chauffeuse 707:comedienne 672:Headmaster 541:? Thanks. 519:Monkeyzpop 252:WP:CHICAGO 857:MarnetteD 805:MarnetteD 788:MarnetteD 738:subject. 731:chauffeur 682:But with 631:MarnetteD 596:MarnetteD 567:MarnetteD 512:Don Adams 499:MarnetteD 450:MarnetteD 433:MarnetteD 406:this edit 369:MarnetteD 216:MarnetteD 187:Myrna Loy 86:MarnetteD 727:masseuse 703:comedian 229:Barnstar 132: 39:archive 852:WP:RSs 517:such. 167:rose64 60:nowiki 775:actor 684:actor 285:Borge 148:XHTML 16:< 883:talk 861:Talk 835:talk 809:Talk 792:Talk 747:talk 733:and 725:and 705:and 686:and 674:and 648:talk 635:Talk 614:talk 600:Talk 585:talk 571:Talk 558:away 547:talk 523:talk 503:Talk 487:talk 467:talk 454:Talk 437:Talk 421:talk 412:. 387:talk 373:Talk 354:talk 323:talk 310:The 276:talk 220:Talk 201:talk 171:talk 162:. -- 158:and 152:SGML 140:HTML 118:talk 90:Talk 74:talk 714:or 696:are 248:BIO 165:Red 144:XML 885:) 859:| 837:) 807:| 790:| 749:) 650:) 633:| 616:) 598:| 587:) 569:| 549:) 525:) 501:| 489:) 469:) 452:| 435:| 423:) 389:) 371:| 356:) 329:) 325:• 299:→ 278:) 258:) 218:| 203:) 195:? 173:) 146:, 120:) 88:| 76:) 881:( 833:( 745:( 646:( 612:( 583:( 545:( 521:( 485:( 465:( 419:( 385:( 352:( 321:( 274:( 254:/ 250:/ 246:/ 244:C 242:/ 240:T 238:( 199:( 169:( 116:( 72:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index