Talk:Actor

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Infobox[edit]

I've removed the infobox recently added to the article as it serves no useful purpose that I can see. If I've missed something, please feel free to explain. Thanks, DionysosProteus (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I added the "occupation infobox" to enhance this really nice B-class article. The ultimate goal is to have a uniform look and in a common format in all articles related to occupations and professions. The infobox exists in other languages and is really successful.
The implementation is quite difficult sometimes, especially with people that worked a lot on an article and feel that it's their way or no way. Wikipedia is for everyone and written by everyone.
WP:SILENCE: "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident"
WP:CON: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"
If you keep reverting the infobox, you take full ownership of the article and don't give any chance of exposure. Obviously, if the consensus is that this "Actor" article should not be like all other occupational articles, consensus wins.
Thanks, --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 00:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article with infobox is available here. My objection to the infobox has nothing to do with a sense of ownership over the article - I've contributed something in the region of a single sentence to it myself. Rather, I object to it because it makes the article look stupid. It gives undue prominence to some, let's say, "highly debatable" and at best extremely "marginal" ideas (since when has an actor anything to do with the circus? actors busk now?). The rest of the "information" presented in that way gives the article an air of self-parody. I find it difficult to imagine what need of a Wikipedia browser/reader is served by it. Who needs to be able to confirm at a glance that an actor needs "skills"? I read that "An infobox on Wikipedia is [...] in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject." Neither of those aims appear to be served by this box. As far as I can see, it only serves to "diminish Wikipedia's reputation as a high-quality encyclopedia" without any compensating gain. DionysosProteus (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the party, but I do agree with Dionysos, the occupation template is too much of a stretch to be truly useful here. It ought to be removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree having looked at the infobox version it looks really dumb.Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed it again.  • DP •  {huh?}

Martin Brodie Moud31 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection[edit]

Article protected temporarily, vandalism/blanking. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for "actress"[edit]

I've just removed a {{cn}} tag because of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. With all the points referenced (before I changed my mind) it looked like this. If it's going to be tagged frequently, perhaps I should go back to the original version. Suggestions? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That form look pretty good except the fact that it is stated twice in the same paragraph that the term actress remains "common in general usage." I would think that this could be stated once and the two refs put with that one mention. I'm not even sure how accurate that is anymore. DVD commentaries as diverse as Mad Men and Doctor Who (and these are only two examples of many that I have heard) and talk shows Like the Graham Norton Show have all switched to using the term "actor" for both genders. Even a show as goofy as Tru TV Presents the World's Dumbest relies solely on the original word. But I know that passions can run high over this so I think leaving in just the one mention would be a positive for the article. MarnetteD | Talk 11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the phrasing. I don't have access to the online OED (only my shorter material version), so I can't check what the entry says for Actress. Is it possible to reproduce the entry here? Or, I seem to remember seeing a template on a talk page yesterday that said something about storing a webpage in an archive that wikipedia could then reference... Do you know about that? The contention is about whether Actress is the most common term today for a female performer in theatre/film. In my experience, it tends to be regarded as anachronistic. So if the article is going to argue that it's the most common, I'd like to examine the evidence. With the phrasing "actress became the usual term", it implies not merely an historical development that has since been superceded, but a change that is still with us today. I seem to recall that the last time I looked at this page, which was a while ago (because it brings me such pain to even look), there were sourced citations supporting the opposite view. I suspect that it's something that will come up again and again with this article. So, I'm thinking that it might be worth creating a sub-page talk article that gives the evidence for terminology.

I was going to propose that this article became the subject of the WikiProject Theatre collaboration drive, since it gets pretty much the most hits in the area: 70,000 in the last 30 days. That's about 2,500 people every day looking at this. It brings shame on my house. But the current proposal was for Theatre, so that's first.

With regards to terminology, I have tagged in the back of my head somewhere that when I do get around to trying to tackle this one, to look at Andrew Gurr's book The Shakespearean Stage. He has an interesting narrative of the shift during the Elizabethan/Jacobean era from "player" as the most common to the emergence of "actor", and how this is related to a decrease of the presentational aspects and an increase in the representational illusion, specifically in terms of the performer "becoming" the character more and more. Can't remember the exact term off the top of my head. Anyhow, worth flagging here if someone else feels brave and wants to work on this article. There's also all the actor/puppet debates in modernism arising out of symbolism and people like Edward Gordon Craig, Vsevolod Meyerhold, etc. We should certainly mention the Übermarionette. Olga Taxidou's work is excellent in this area.  • DP •  {huh?} 12:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from DP's comment that a closer referencing of the OED quotes is needed: self revert follows. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All biographies that I have seen in the last month or so on "The Biography Channel" now use the word actor when identifying both male and female interviewees. It looks like a reference is going to be needed for actress remaining in "general usage". Please see the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition [1] which specifically uses a female in their examples section. MarnetteD | Talk 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some distinction needs to be made between "general use" by the public, in which old habits die hard, and the acting profession and the media. I don't know how easy or hard that will be to find but it might but I am seeing more signs of a shift towards gender neutrality as this past decade has gone by. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Date from Lizbeth Goodman added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your time and efforts. I think the addition helps to explain the direction that the usage is moving (too fast for some and too slow for others I am sure) towards. MarnetteD | Talk 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is fair enough to say that some people use the word actress to refer to a female actor but phrases like usually actress for female written on the opening line are not good unless you have some evidence for it. Never used the word actress myself, I've heard it used obviously. Even the American Oscars uses the word female actor and that's America - not exactly the most socially liberal country!--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading this I can see why you feel it jars, but we're reporting what is, and not what we'd like. The statistics are given in "Terminology", lower down. Is there way of expressing this less bluntly? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference to survey[edit]

In the terminology section, the article contained a reference to a survey of a corpus of British English, purporting to show that use of the term "actor" is nearly twice as common as use of the term "actress". However, the reference noted that the survey did not distinguish between references to male actors and to female actors. That being the case, it seemed entirely irrelevant to the question of how common a term "actress" is for female actors. Moreover, it was slightly misleading in that at a glance it seemed to say that "actor" was twice as commonly used for female actors as "actress" was—the qualification was buried in the text of the footnote itself.

Because I felt that the reference was misleading and because it did not seem to support either side of the question in any case, I took it out. JudahH (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify why the reference was misleading and why it didn't really support either side: it was presented as follows:

"Actress remains in general use, although in a survey of a "wide cross-section of current British English", compiled in 2010, actor was almost twice as commonly found as actress" [emphasis on "although" added]

"Although" implies that the survey results tend to undermine the statement that 'actress' remains in general use, which is supported by the lack of context given, allowing the reader to assume that 'actor' was almost twice as commonly found as 'actress' in reference to female actors. However, once one takes into account that the survey ignores the gender of the referent, the numbers tell a different story. If one assumes that references to male and female actors were approximately equal, then 'actor' being twice as common overall would imply that 'actress' is twice as common in reference to female actors ('actor' would be used every time for male actors and 1/3 of the time for female actors; 'actress' would be used 2/3 of the time for female actors and never for male actors).

However, without knowing the contextual details for each reference, the survey offers at best tenuous evidence for usage in either direction, so I simply took it out instead. JudahH (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Acting awards" section[edit]

Is it time for a WP:SS spinoff yet? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing as the last couple of awards were added. Since there are wikiarticles for the awards they would seem to meet notability requirements but I don't think we need an ever expanding list in the middle of this article. Hopefully others will add their thoughts but I would be in favor (or per WP:ENGVAR favour) of you handling this in the way that you think best. Thanks for bring this up and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion may be superfluous: List of awards in theatre includes performances. Transfer any not already there, delete the rest, add the wikilink to "see also" section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transferred to List of awards in theatre and List of film awards. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic adverb[edit]

MarnetteD, there is an issue with how the lead sentence is worded - not on point of view, but on verifiablity and semantics. In its present form - "An actor (sometimes actress for female)" - it is synthesized original research that is unsupported by the given reference. The citation provided after the first sentence does not mention the word actress, nor mention its usage frequency. In fact, that citation in no way represents the majority of people and what the general usage is. What is the word "sometimes" supposed to mean, MarnetteD? There is no way that you can prove how often a word is used, so making the claim that the word is used "sometimes" is original research. Also, a previous revision of the article had used "usually" as the adverb, but that is also original research. Words such as "sometimes" and "usually" cannot stand by themselves without citations of studies on how often the word is used, which is impractical/unable to be determined.

Since this vagueness in wording is the problem, we can avoid the issue of determining how often the word is used by using "also", because it means "in addition to". If we use "also", that means that the word "actor" in addition to "actress" is used as terminology for female actors. So here is my compromise to avoid the issue of gender-neutrality/possible unbalanced point of view from any side: "An actor (or actress, also used to denote females) is a person who..." What do you think about this wording? Also, the "denote" in front of female should be replaced with a better verb along the lines of "describe", "label", "title", or another similar verb. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure when the ref changed over the years. At some point based on the discussion above Old Moonraker had added a ref that backed the use of the wording. Unfortunately he is no longer editing so I can't check his memory. I do know that we have numerous examples such as the names for the Screen Actors Guild Awards [2] Documentaries like The Celluloid Closet and those presented on The Biography Channel and TruTV all use the word actor for both sexes. Even though the Academy Awards retain the use of the gender specific wording for the specific awards the way the label those in the profession has changed as can be seen in the In Memorium segment of February 2012's show [3]
The Merriam-Webster definition here [4] especially its 1st example of usage in a sentence "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here [5], here [6] and here [7] all of which use gender neutral definitions. Writing style guides such as this one [8]. I would think that any or more than one of these could be used to replace the reference that is in the article now.
In the DVD commentaries for Mad Men those in front of the camera and behind it refer to both genders as actors. Interview shows like The Graham Norton show do the same. I would think that all of these justify the use of the word "sometimes" since they certainly show that it actress isn't used all of the time. But that is just me.
I know that you have already allowed for some of this in your post and I appreciate your compromise attempt - it reads odd to me (apologies of that causes offense) - what do you think of "(or actress which can be used to denote females)" - "can be" being preferable to "must be" That might be just as clunky so if you have another idea please add it when you have the time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TV shows such as Mad Men are notable and significant, but they are just one out of some million different examples that one can bring up where actor and/or actress may be used. There is no way that we can determine the frequency of usage by the millions of English speakers around the world, and we cannot just use our personal opinion to provide support for the frequency or tendency of usage. Again, that is original research, and should be avoided.
How about "(or actress which may be used to denote females)"? There is a difference between "can" and "may", and when we say "can", it implies that the word is able to be used, rather than "expressing a present possibility" of being used. I know this is all semantics, but the wording should reflect a neutral stance and suggest possibility of both or any form of usage, which again, cannot be determined without extensive studies using sources from all samples of English language such as books from the UK, Australia, Canada, or even India - not just the United States; and this example is only for books too. There is an even greater variability of usage online, which cannot be represented by a small sample "study" done by one single newspaper or source. I hope this makes sense. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the ref should probably be replaced by a dictionary source.
Dictionaries such as Merriam Webster may/might use only the word "actor" in their definitions because the word already encompasses both male and female (or other) genders, so there is no need to use the female-specific "actress" (which in itself may have additional connotations that can be used aside from the simple connotation of an acting person). Even though these dictionaries are one source of notability and standards, they do not represent the frequency of usage by other sources and the rest of the examples. The first sentence in this article defines the definition of an acting person - an actor. However, since the role of an encyclopedia is to document/note significant examples which are also used, we have the responsibility to provide alternate forms of use - next most significant: actress, and less significant: player. And we do not attempt to categorize or comment on them in the article, but rather publish analysis done by other sources in a neutral manner. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your new wording looks good. You should do the edit since you came up with it and I will let you pick from the relevant sources and give you any feedback if it looks like it needs enhancement. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the ref to an OED source. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "also" because it means the same thing as "which may be" (both imply possibility). - M0rphzone (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good thanks for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 04:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As opposite sex[edit]

The "As opposite sex" section seems overly long in proportion to the length of the article as a whole. Seems like either the rest of the article needs to built up, or this section needs to be trimmed. Or perhaps it could be developed into a separate article? And does it really belong under "Techniques", anyway? --Alexbook (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding theatre, film and TV acting sections[edit]

The lede notes that there are theatre, film and TV actors. I made a good faith effort to create sections that explained some of the differences between the different types of acting. Some of the content adds quite useful info , like the section on stage directions for theatre actors and the section on screen tests for Tv actors. This is a C class article, not a FA, so it needs development. When I attempted to improve the article everything I added was reverted and called POV nonsense. I believe reverting is for vandalism. A better response would be to tag these sections and to try to improve them.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt from the WP statement on reverting: "Reverting a contribution may be necessary and appropriate. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors may also be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing." OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Actor. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Actor. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Neziroski 2003" ref broken[edit]

The ref with the name mentioned in this section heading has a broken cite template, though I can't find anything wrong with it. Also, if it hasn't just been messed up, the link is now dead. CamelCase (Talk | Contribs) 04:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Money[edit]

I'd like to know more about the money. The highest-paid actors and their pay checks are well known, but what about the average professional? How much (s)he gets paid – or how much a role is worth? Here's some interesting info along these lines:

"nowadays, if you’re doing a guest starring role, you get paid “top of show.” [...] it just simply means the top amount that we will pay anyone appearing on the show. It varies from show to show, but it’s SAG/AFTRA [actor's union] rules. It depends, I guess, on what the budget of the show is but it’s never more than $9,000 pe[r] episode. And it’s usually between $5,000 and $6,000. [Editor's note: By comparison, Jim Parsons and the other stars [of] Big Bang Theory earn $1 million an episode, while Andrew Lincoln, star of The Walking Dead, earns more like $90,000 an episode.]" Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2017/02/11/hollywood-econ-101-or-why-you-should-consider-contributing-to-an-actresss-kickstarter-really/#e45734c4d3e5

Does anyone have any more information? Ideally, something like a bar chart with the amount of money on y-axis and an x-axis depicting actors from the highest-paid to the lowest-paid. Is this information available or could it be constructed with statistical methods? --188.172.219.69 (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actress[edit]

There's a very thick debate around the term "actress" and in most circles, the term "actress" is outdated and archaic. [1] I made an edit which was reverted that I would like re-added and was hoping we could discuss this. Thoughts? Opinions? Thank you. Fazart (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.stage32.com/lounge/acting/Actor-vs-Actress-what-is-the-correct-title-now
What was your edit that was reverted?
You claim that “In most circles, the term “actress” is outdated and archaic.” What “circles” are you referring to? In the United States of America, it is commonly known that the terms “actor” and “actress” are the proper terms for male performers and female performers, respectively - they are equivalent terms, but not interchangeable. If Actor and Actress were interchangeable there would not be separate categories for Academy Award recipients given annually to 'Best Actor’/'Best Actress', 'Best Supporting Actor’/‘Best Supporting Actress’; there would simply be ‘Best Actor’ and ‘Best Supporting Actor’. If a transexual individual is genetically female but identifies as male, they could be considered for the awards categories of male ‘actors’, and if a transexual individual who is genetically male identifies as female, they could be considered for the awards categories of female ‘actresses’.If a performer is genetically female and identifies as such, they are ineligible for the awards categories of male ‘actors’, and if a performer is genetically male and identifies as such, they are ineligible for the awards categories of female ‘actresses’.
Claiming that the words ‘actor’ and ‘actress’ are synonymous is factually inaccurate and an unacceptable modification of specific, separate, distinct terms.
Using these terms interchangeably serves no purpose other than to blur the lines between these categorical titles and create confusion between the two. If it is appropriate to refer to females as “actors”, then by the same logic it would be appropriate to refer to males as “actresses”, yet no-one seems to mention this double-standard when attempting to change the terminology.
User Jim1138 said that "If the person states what they want to be called "she, he, they", "actor" or "actress" that is what Wikipedia should use” and pointed at wp:SELF-IDENTITY. My response is as follows: "People can choose their pronouns, i.e. “she, he, they”. People can NOT, however, apply proper nouns to themselves and demand that they be referred to by those nouns. This is not “shoehorning people into boxes”, it is referring to people by the appropriate, specific terminology of their chosen profession. If people are allowed to assign titles to themselves without justification, the titles lose their meaning. By your logic, if I state that I want to be called “President”, “Senator”, “Doctor”, “Captain”, et cetera, you (and Wikipedia) should be required to refer to me as such. Can you see the absurdity here?” Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actor[edit]

An actor is who plays a character. However, the word actor / actress is usually associated with beautiful people; Beauty is often a prime factor in identifying an actor.

By antonomasia is denominated actor or actress to the beautiful people who dedicate themselves to the interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick Barker (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actor game[edit]

What the f**k is the actor game and why is it in wiki unexplained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.64.45 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Role of women[edit]

In the paragraph of "Role of women" they are making comparisons of salaries between men and women and comparisons between the salaries of actors and actresses according to race, comparisons between participations, that is absurd. Do actors earn more for being men? No, men earn more for being more box office, the salary of an actor or an actress is independent of their gender, race and likewise the number of shares, so that paragraph is absurd, they must correct it.Erick Barker (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Erick Barker: The content, and the quotation, is fully and reliably sourced. The contention of the quoted and attributed source is that at least some actors do indeed earn more because they are men. The fact that you may disagree does not allow you to remove the content from the encyclopedia. This article is not about your opinions. If you can find other, published, sources that include factual information to contradict the assertion, cite them here for discussion and possible inclusion in the article. General Ization Talk 02:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, in the paragraph of "Role of women" the sources cited are the tabloid press, that the actors earn more money just for being men is something extremely absurd, it's as if they said that male basketball players earn more money than the female basketball players just for being men, ignoring the race, the years in basketball, the annotations, the matches won, the titles obtained. The following article shows that actors do not earn more money because they are men. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/12/29/why-jennifer-lawrences-20m-and-chris-pratts-12m-passengers-payday-was-a-trap/#114b3315240bErick Barker (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes citation above "shows" nothing of the sort. It discusses a specific film (Passengers) and two specific actors (Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence). It does not claim to, nor does it, offer any comment as to whether female actors of the same caliber earn more or less than male actors in general. General Ization Talk 03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the sources cited being "the tabloid press," the sources for the paragraph you are referring to are the self same Forbes, Variety and Slate. None of these are tabloids. General Ization Talk 03:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The general statistics for pay disparity by race and gender needs to be sourced. A "source" that simply makes that claim is not a source at all. Forbes's place as a large publication is not a strong argument for forwarding on unsourced data. 69.1.39.86 (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nia sharma[edit]

is an indian actress Halaabdlrhmn (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The part of "Pay equity"[edit]

In the part of "Pay equity" you are giving your personal point of view, Wikipedia is a place for specific information, not to give opinions, neither yours nor mine, the article is clearly implying that white men are pay more money just for being white men, that is, you are walking beyond simply giving statistics, in addition that in the given statistics you are making a comparison by race and gender. Why do not you make a comparison by age or by blood type? It is obvious that some media make such comparisons to generate scandal and thus sell, however, Wikipedia is no place for scandals or controversial things unresolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick Barker (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section reflects the reporting of reliable sources, including Fortune and Variety. While you are free to disagree with these sources, we reflect what reliable sources report in the encyclopedia, not your or my personal opinions. Your repeated attempts to vandalize the section will not be tolerated. General Ization Talk 17:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you already expressed your dissatisfaction with the article in July, and your comments then were addressed above. Nothing has changed. General Ization Talk 17:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited are actually only "famous" sources, not "reliable" sources, although it is true that the data they have given are true, here the thing is the "insinuation", the fact of saying that a white man they pay more money just for being a white man, proof of this is the "comparison of race and gender" as I said before. Why do not these happy reliable sources make a comparison by age or blood type? Why do they necessarily have to make comparisons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick Barker (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Erick Barker: If you can improve the paragraph to better reflect what the cited sources say, you are welcome to try. However, you are not welcome to vandalize the article by adding personal commentary to the section heading or any other part of the article, or by removing accurate summaries of the cited content with which you disagree. As explained in July, you are welcome to provide citations of and summarize other reliable sources that comment on this issue, as long as you do so accurately and neutrally. Since July, you have not done so, and I have little confidence that you will do so. Also, please learn to sign your comments on Talk pages. Others should not need to do this for you. General Ization Talk 17:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So Forbes magazine, Forbes previously published the lists of male and female models best paid where it was seen that women were paid more money than men, Forbes magazine stopped publishing the list of male models best paid , now only publishes the list of the best paid female models. Is that a coincidence? In Hollywood Jennifer Lawrence complained and complained that American Hustle paid less than his male colleagues and asked for equal pay, however, in the movie Pasengers, she charged 20 million while his male companion charged 12 million And where is the salary equality that Jennifer Lawrence had asked for? It is clear, double moral. In addition, in other salary lists, they do not make comparisons by gender and race, in basketball, in soccer or in music, also in Wikipedia articles that talk about sports or music, there are no comparisons in salaries race and gender, comparisons are only here, where they talk about actors.
To improve the article, for that I would need sources, which have not been published because, according to what is seen, the media only make comparisons between the salaries of the actors and actresses, they do not make comparisons in salaries of other professions like in the of the models, I said before that Forbes stopped publishing his list of male models better paid, also apparently, the media only publish articles if the actor who makes more money than the actress, when the actress wins More money than the actor almost does not publish anything. And finally, when salaries are published in a profession, salaries are published without making any comparison except for the profession of actor, the profession of actor is the only profession where comparisons are made by race and by gender and the media take out and produce numerous articles of such comparisons, but of course, only if it is a white man who charges more, if it is a black man, a Latino or a woman who charges more, almost, almost, they keep silent.Erick Barker (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"To improve the article, for that I would need sources, which have not been published because ..." You have just explained why your contributions to the article would represent an editorial, not statements of fact supported by published sources. That is not what we do here. Feel free to contact our cited sources to complain about how they have reported on this issue. However, in the absence of an ability and intent to improve the encyclopedia in compliance with its policies, please leave its articles alone. Please see WP:ISNOT and WP:NOTHERE. General Ization Talk 18:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it is assumed that in Wikipedia they will publish what the media publish regardless of how wrong or provocative they may be? So if the media publishes anti-Semitic articles, on Wikipedia will they also publish those same anti-Semitic articles? Well, if we lived in the era of Nazism, surely Wikipedia would be full of anti-Semitic content because during that time there was a lot of hate propaganda towards the Jews, nowadays what you see is a lot of victimization propaganda for being a woman or for being black. For what I said before, not only is Forbes, there are also many media, whether prestigious or without prestige, who think the same as Forbes "If in that profession men earn less money than women, then there is no publish anything, so other people will not have any source to support their logical versions. "Erick Barker (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Erick Barker: I have explained Wikipedia's policies to you. I cannot explain the policies of any news or other online or publishing medium; you'll need to contact them for that. This Talk page is intended for discussions concerning improvements to this article, not philosophical discussions. I don't see any point in engaging with you further, except to say that if you edit this article again, your edits must be constructive and comply with the policies I have explained to avoid being blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 20:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could talk to those media, but will they respond? And what's more, will they respond with the truth? Will they say "is that what they sell" or "is it that we seek to promote hatred towards men"? Forbes, for example, previously published the list of the best-paid male and female models where it looked like women earned more money than men, Forbes stopped publishing the list of the highest-paid male models, now only publishes the list of the best paid female models Is that a coincidence? It is as if they made a list of the good things and bad things that the Jews do and suddenly one day they stop publishing the list of good things that the Jews do and only publish the list of the bad things that the Jews do, with an action thus it can be clearly deduced that they seek to promote anti-Semitism. There are many differences between people, however, in what are salaries of actors and actresses, the media only look at gender and race, the two most scandalous things. Is that another coincidence? Why do not they say things like "the atheist actors pay more money than the believing actors", "the actors older than 20 pay them more money than those under 20", "the democratic actors are paid more money than the Republicans, "etc? They only make comparisons of salaries by race and gender, never make comparisons for other things like religion, age, political options, etc. This page is of "actor" but if we go to the page of "model", "basketball" or "golf", in those pages there is no comparison of salaries by race or gender, likewise the media do not make any comparison of salaries by race or gender in jobs such as basketball, American footballer, golfer, swimmer, etc.Erick Barker (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get rid of this section and have it on a seperate page. This is really just an American issue. Also It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender for pay in the United States because of the equal pay act of 1963. [[User:holehis] 2:14, 12, May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding

April 2020: "Actress" section[edit]

The "Actress" section needed to be moved further down in the article, and I did so. Firstly, "actress" is an archaic term; today, "actor" is gender-neutral. Secondly, the section begins with historical references, which are explained in the "History" section. Thirdly, the discussion of Hollywood's gender pay gap is not of primary concern in such a general article; the subject should not be brought up early in the article, as that constitutes undue emphasis.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Craig Watkinson" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Craig Watkinson. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Craig Watkinson until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Joyu" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Joyu. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Joyu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

influence/popularity[edit]

there really should be a section about how influential and popular actors are in their periods. not just modern day actors, but even Elizabethean-era actors like Richard Burbage were well-known and had a fair amount of wealth for their period. or how they impact certain political statements... basically their influential aspect2607:FEA8:BDA0:1A8F:E5C9:D194:EDE3:273E (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of Shaw[edit]

As I stated in my edit summary "this article is about the history of acting and Garrick is far more notable in that regard" While Shaw is a fine actor the pic of him from The Buccaneers is not representative of the overall craft of acting IMO. MarnetteD|Talk 15:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another picture[edit]

Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. As I mentioned above "this article is about the history of acting" and Stallone, though an enjoyable watch for many, is not notable to that history and his pic is being placed by the IP as decorative. MarnetteD|Talk 14:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other parts of the world?[edit]

Did actors ever exist outside Europe and the United States? From reading this article, I have no idea... —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 05:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Actor&oldid=1216895490"