Talk:Elisabeth Moss/Archive 1

Archive 1

MTV Undressed

Wasn't she also in MTV Undressed? 71.233.174.226 13:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The West Wing

Her role as Zoey Bartlett on the Emmy winning "West Wing" should probably warrant a mention, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.43.110 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC) (Right. I'm an idiot who didn't notice it at the VERY TOP OF THE ARTICLE! Sorry about that.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RootBoy42 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Imdb

According to Imdb, she was born on July, 24. Who's right? --151.23.64.95 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC) It was me ^_^' --Ginosal 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just read an interview with her in the Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/jan/25/elisabeth-moss-interview-mad-men - in which it gives her birth year as 1982. That, combined with the imdb info and the lack of a source for the 1983 date, means it should probably be changed to July 82.80.229.225.16 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

best known

"best known for" is the scourge of wikipedia. it's wholly subjective and almost always (as here) unsupported. here's the junk i cut out:

best known for her portrayal of first daughter Zoey Bartlet on the television serial drama The West Wing and as secretary and copy writer Peggy Olson on the AMC original series Mad Men —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.232.13 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Unknown...

Well I guess this is for anyone who's ever written anything professionally (or even on a college level for that matter). The first citation sources an "Unknown title" and an "Unknown author." Anyone else have a slight problem with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.154 (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unknown author, unknown title ?

Can more info be provided regarding this citation? If not, it should be removed. Surely at least one of the two is needed in order to appropriately satisfy WP:V. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actor

She self-identifies as an actor, so that's how we describe her. – ukexpat (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. Among other places she specifically refers to herself as an actor on the commentaries for the Mad Men DVDs. MarnetteD | Talk 03:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

She may well do so, but from the number of editors who, as I did a few months ago, read "actor" and assume it is a typo, it is clear that this is not a "well known fact" like "the sun is hot". The repeated changes to "actress" indicate that this content is not understood by readers, is regularly challenged, and many active editors think that "actress" is correct, so it requires an inline reference just like any other unsourced content which is challenged. Please stop reverting without providing a reliable source. If the DVD contains a quote from her that would I imagine be fine and I don't understand why you have failed to provide it. I think a quote from her is needed to confirm "self-identification". --Mirokado (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In tonight's Academy Awards telecast the "In memorium" section used the word actor for both the men and women who passed away last year. For me that pretty much seals it use as a conventional description. This comes on top of at least three years of all of the documentaries on "The Biography Channel" and "tru TV" as well as feature length documentaries like The Celluloid Closet doing the same thing. I am not sure how many more sources are needed. I would like to point out that we have the same kind of back and forth editing with BC/AD and BCE/CE on various articles and sourcing is not always required to explain why they are used. Reverting of edits happens there and will continue to happen elsewhere. I am 90% certain that it is the 2nd season DVDs where Ms Moss self identifies as an actor but life off wiki is so busy that I don't know when I will be able to replay those to find the specific episode. I can say that it is there. MarnetteD | Talk 04:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actor is definitely the correct modern English term, much as 'comedienne' is no longer used. I assume it's because it is a hangover from more sexist times. After all, who needs to make the distinction of sex in terms of the job itself? It simply segregates female actors from male actors to no good end. Whether the Academy will ever change their awards to 'Best Male Actor' and 'Best Female Actor' is another matter. :)--TheoGB (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that changing the name of the award may take awhile but this [1] shows that AMPAS has adopted the gender neutral terminology in areas other than the name of the awards. MarnetteD | Talk 15:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

pic

Marnette says that the "previous version is correct" - what does that even mean? It's about two pictures of the same woman, how can one be "correct"? --91.10.5.207 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually the edit summary reads "again previous version is correct until you explain why the pic should be changed on the talk page" which means that the SPA has not explained why the pic needs changing. MarnetteD | Talk 15:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it means that you somehow think your version is superior ("correct", as you call it), something which you will find had to prove. Your other comments ("rvt changes made w/o explanation") is equally nonsense, that is in no way a sufficient explanation. This is Wikipedia, learn to embrace change.

What kind if "explaining" do you expect? What are the reasons for keeping the old picture?

I've just noticed your other reversal here. Your edit comment seems to show a significant amount of disrespect for your fellow editor. You should reevaluate your position on this.

(For the record: I don't like either picture.) --91.10.5.207 (talk)

I have not said anything about a "correct" version so do not try to put words in my mouth and I do not "had" to prove anything. None of my edit summaries show any disrespect to anyone so if false accusations are the only thing left you have to bring to the conversation I will not be responding here further. MarnetteD | Talk 17:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. A few lines above you say that you reset the article to the "correct" version, and now you deny it? Do you think I don't remember what this is about? Un case you don't, here are some difflinks:

• [2]
• [3]

Are you still claiming that you never said anything about a "correct" version?

Your revert comment difflinked above implies that the version you don't like is "unclean". That is disrespectful. It does not matter if you disagree, just don't use terms like this. --91.10.5.207 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The pic has now been removed as a copy vio and there was a clear WP:COI so the previous version was correct. You also keep leaving out the fact that the sentence was much longer. Obviously you are having some kind of problem understanding how things work around here. The rule is "comment on content - not on other editors" - if you can't do that there is, obviously no reason to respond to you WP:PA violations any longer. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you knew about the copyvio, why haven't you mentioned it before? If you didn't, in what way would that excuse your behaviour?

Your sentence was longer, I quoted only the relevant part of it. (Are you really down to this kind of argument?)

Your disrespect towards other editors should not go unnoticed or uncommented. Change your ways and be more friendly towards others. --91.10.5.207 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove the ad hominem attack

Why is there an ad hominem attack on Fred Armisen? I think the quote is inappropriate, especially given the context. If Wikipedia were a "real" encyclopedia, the quote would not be included in any article of scholarly merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brhannan (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elisabeth Moss. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713114659/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/person/elisabeth-moss/biography.html to http://movies.yahoo.com/person/elisabeth-moss/biography.html;_ylt=AhHsucszksNrCCaxbI69Gnn3TssF;_ylu=X3oDMTI2ajBnaDlrBG1pdANQZXJzb24gRW50aXR5IEFib3V0BHBvcwMxBHNlYwNNZWRpYUVudGl0eUFib3V0TGlua3NQYWNrYWdlQXNzZW1ibHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTE2Z2ppM3RwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQD;_ylv=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718001718/http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2009ptemmys/61stemmys_noms.php to http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2009ptemmys/61stemmys_noms.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130325101627/http://www.nypost.com:80/pagesixmag/issues/20120308/Mad+Woman+Bad+Girl? to http://www.nypost.com/pagesixmag/issues/20120308/Mad+Woman+Bad+Girl

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

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Scientology

I removed the Scientology stuff about how a headache medication commercial conflicts with scientology. While the basic facts are public: membership in religion, religion's views, and her doing the commercial; the idea that there is any issue, is a novel original research, as it hasn't been widely written about (or if it has, no good source is given). We don't write about every actor who happens to have a role seemingly in conflict with their religion. Imagine all of the articles about actors portraying characters having pre-marital sex, who belong to a church that opposes it. This is a part of an ongoing campaign by one user, to put stuff about Scientology's beleifs in every bio article they possible can. I left a link to Scientology, for those who think its somehow relevant/signficant. Now, if relevant sources report this as being an issue for the actress, impacting her career and public reputation then it may be worth mentioning. I'm not opposed to the conclusion reached, I'm just objecting to original research being done to reach it.

P.S. I added her to "American actors" category. She was already in "Scientologists" (which I left). This tells you of the priorities some editors have. --Rob 22:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you incapable of editing these articles without making insulting, condescending, and just plain WRONG assumptions about what it is I am doing, and why am I doing it? And for your information, I didn't write the text about Aspirin conflicting with Moss' Scientology beliefs, some other editor did. Please get your facts straight and leave out your theories about my motivations behind my edits. wikipediatrix 23:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your edit, so you're definately apart of it (though not alone). Anyways, I'll let this speak for itself. --Rob 23:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But note that the basic info did not originate with me, contrary to your unfair accusation. Someone else put it there, I thought it sounded fishy and disliked that it was unsourced, so I checked out and found it a source that verified the info. So basically, you're bitching me out for fixing an unsourced statement. I actually agree with you that it probably is a borderline OR issue, but your approach is so rude, in-your-face and hostile that it defeats any hope of having a good-faith edit consensus with you. Try losing the 'tude next time. wikipediatrix 00:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this info: "has completed the Hubbard Qualified Scientologist Course, ARC Straightwire, Student Hat, Grade III Expanded, New Hubbard Professional TR Course, and New Hubbard Professional Upper Indoc TR Course services."? It's like saying a Catholic actor has received first communion, etc. 24.163.127.19 (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Removing. --Matt (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a citation for her being a scientologist on the List of Scientologists page. It references an article in the magazine Bust. Currently we don't have a reference for her being involved with Scientology in this article, however I am reluctant to add the reference from the other article as I have not read the article myself. Perhaps someone who has can add it here if it does indeed confirm her involvement. 60.241.42.37 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The quotes between her and the instagram user are both misquoted (they left out the "(aka news)" bit) and structured in a confusing way that makes it seem like she's defending Gilead. Lucanio (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Actor vs actress

So it's been said here that Moss self identifies as an actor opposed to actor; however, I cannot find a single source to support that. Majority of sources refer to her as an actress. Actress is the norm to use here for female actors. While I agree that if it's reliably sourced that she prefers the term actor, that's the term we should use here. However, in absence of that, we should use actress, as is the norm on Wikipedia and with majority of media. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It is in the commentaries on the Mad Men DVDs. BTW the majority of media do not default to actress any longer. MarnetteD|Talk 02:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Commentary on a DVD isn't a reliable source. In any case, we use plain English on Wikipedia, self ID doesn't apply here. Per following RS sources, am changing to actress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elisabeth-mosss-fresh-horrors-invisible-man-11582222106

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/her-smell-elisabeth-moss-one-scariest-moments-set-1258608

https://www.biography.com/actor/elisabeth-moss

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/actress-elisabeth-moss-on-dystopian-series-the-handmaids-tale/

LK (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia also strives for gender neutral language and we also are not bound by the style decisions of other publications. At MOS:ID we are to look at the most recent reliable sources and if there isn't a clear preference then self ID most definitely does apply. So here's the thing, there was already a consensus on the page, though not through discussion. The hidden note has been in place for at least 8 years which is a kind of long-term consensus. You were bold in editing against established consensus but as per WP:BRD I have reverted your edit and now the issue can be discussed in order to establish a new consensus or keep the existing one. However, you're not going to get much argument from me because I really do not involve myself in this category of articles (film, actors, etc) and have no feel for how these things are typically handled. I read through the Actors and Filmmakers project (telling, perhaps, that it is Actors and not Actors/Actresses) and didn't see anything about this issue there. We should probably ask to see if there is a project-wide consensus on the issue or at least seek guidance from the participants of that project. SQGibbon (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I left a message over at the actor and filmmaker talk page asking for help on this. SQGibbon (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Does it matter what she "self identifies as"? Should the same considerations be given to Michel Roger Lafosse? 197.87.101.28 (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Last decade it was determined that if a person self identified as an actor then that is the term used. A bit like the situation for gender identification. Moss has clearly referred to herself by this gender neutral term. In the intervening years the move to using the term for men and women has increased. A primary example of that is the fact that on all Comcast menus the only term used is actor. Other examples include interviews on the Graham Norton show where actor is used for both sexes and the use of the gender neutral wording for Screen Actors Guild Awards#Categories. Both sexes are part of the same species so separate wording is not needed. Authoress, poetess, comedienne and aviatrix are no longer needed. This falls into the same situation. MarnetteD|Talk 13:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What matters is the fact that the word actor does not mean male. It is a gender neutral term. Sources abound about the fact that actor has become a gender neutral word. 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. This writing style guide [8] agrees. MarnetteD|Talk 13:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Elisabeth Moss 2019 Golden Globe Awards.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)