Talk:Sally Field/Archive 1

Archive 1

Feynman number?

The article says she has a Feynman number of 2. What is that supposed to mean and how is it trivia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrobin (talk • contribs)

By analogy with Erdős numbers, I guess it means that there exists some person who has worked (on different projects) with both Sally Field and Richard Feynman. What could be more trivial? —Tamfang 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's cute!

Speaking of which... how is it even possible to write an article about Sally Field without using the word "cute?" NCdave (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Osteoporosis

I removed the following text from the article, as it was unsourced:

In 2005, Field was diagnosed with osteoporosis. Her diagnosis led her to create the "Rally With Sally For Bone Health" campaign with support from Roche and GlaxoSmithKline that co-promote Boniva, a treatment for osteoporosis.

Can someone help find any sources for this? Thanks. Acalamari 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If Sally Field "created" a charity/awareness campaign in 2005 I don't think it necessarily lives up to WP:Notability. It is better left out! TinyMark 11:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to help Sally out in her campaign about osteoporosis: A couple of million guys have it too. Thing is, it is diagnosed somewhat differently than with women (there must be a test of his testosterone level in addition to a bone scan) and treated differently (everything starts with remedying the low testosterone level). Calcitonin is a good place to start when choosing how to remedy the bone loss. Bisphosphonates not so good a place when it comes to men. Hope this helps.Godofredo29 (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

reliable sources

She did the ads and the Sally Rally:

• Sally Field and Boniva: Great spokeswoman, misleading ad (Consumer Reports, 2009)
  
• FDA warns Genentech about Boniva ad with Sally Field (Video) (San Francisco Bus Times 2011)
  
• Actress and Osteoporosis Advocate Sally Field Salutes Women's Health Innovators and Encourages American Women to 'Rally With Sally' for Bone Health (PRNewswire, 2006)
  

On notability, in 2013, the drug/class dangers and corp marketing involvement are more apparent. --Stageivsupporter (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Emmy speech

I would STRONGLY suggest somebody lock this article until the hub-bub around Sally Field's Emmy Speech calms down. I'm not expressing an opinion either way, other than it is likely this article may suffer vandalism in the next few days from either opinion's camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.135.26 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.242.183 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is notable that she said the speech. It is also notable that she is wrong as mother leaders have fought wars. WP cannot tell lies. It must be fair. Cam809 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The point isn't whether she is wrong or not, the point is whether it should have been censored for decency. What's more indecent, saying there should be no more war, or going to war and killing people? Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section, as it was an incoherent train wreck at this point. It is hard to find good sources on this. Most sources didn't include the full quote or any detail. • I did find the YouTube video, but this guideline leads me to conclude it should not be considered a reliable source, and WP:YOUTUBE says copyvio videos are a no-no (and any YouTube video of a TV broadcast is going to be copyvio). Presumably, if someone wants to watch the video on YouTube, they can search for it themselves, like I did. • To Cam809: On Wikipedia, we do not make "right" or "wrong" determinations, per WP:NOR. Per WP:V, verifiability is the criteria, not truth. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Except, that's not what the cited source says. I'm going to fix the errors that have been introduced into this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

When is someone going to write about, "you like me...you really like me...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.97.185.35 (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody should, because that is not what she said. Rs09985 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, she did say that in another speech in 1985, and I just finished watching it, so you're wrong. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

She did not say the word "really", but she did say "You like me, you like me!" when she won her second Best Actress Oscar. I saw it live, and now you can see it on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWtUVDG5M1w Unschool 14:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And yes, that comment is big Oscar history, and should be included in the article. Unschool 14:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Posters who are discussing Field's comment "You like me! You really Like me!" at her second Oscar win seem unaware of its history. She was quoting a line from one of the most moving scenes in her first Oscar-winning movie, NORMA RAE. The quote was completely appropriate, amusing and touching. But Field has undergone decades of mockery from people who didn't recognize the source she was using. Rarely has an Oscar win been so tainted by the envious and the ignorant. Younggoldchip (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

a U.S. Army officer who worked in sales ?

"Sally Field was born in Pasadena, California, the daughter of Margaret (b. May 10, 1923), an actress, and Richard Dryden Field, a U.S. Army officer who worked in sales.[1]"

This sounds like her father was in sales for the Army.

Seems he was a salesman by profession and also served in the Army at some point. http://www.film*eference.com/film/45/Sally-Field.html http://www.o*rah.com/omagazine/Oprah-Interviews-Sally-Field —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisca123 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm at a loss understanding these recent edits. I will list my concerns here:

1. Why was the statement "Field's acceptance speech was censored by the Fox Broadcasting Company when she made an anti-war statement containing an expletive attributive" removed and/or changed? I can see no reason.
2. Why was the quote, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no goddamn wars in the first place!" altered? That is the full sentence that she spoke. I can see no reason why it was changed.

Awaiting a response. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the source to which the quote is cited, it does not report that she finished her remarks with the words, "...in the first place!" Also, while the censorship part by Fox is an important part of a incident, the content of Field's speech is also an important part of the incident so having separate sentences devoted to both parts of the incident (and not just conflating them in a manner that prejudices the actions of Fox) is a more neutral presentation of the issue. Gobbleygook (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not report that she finished her remarks with those words? It doesn't have to. That is exactly what she said.[1] There are numerous sources on this subject,[2][3] including the widely available video. When you do research on a topic, please try to look at more than one source. Even Politico, a conservative news source, wrote, "she was getting censored at the Emmy Awards for declaring that 'if the mothers ruled the world, there would be no goddamn wars in the first place!'"[4] Just because one source fails to document something correctly doesn't mean we delete it. A good rule of thumb is to look at many sources on a subject; never rely on just one, and in fact, when you add something to Wikipedia, you should make sure there are at least two. So the original material you removed was correct and needs to be added back into the article. And as the source you've just been given demonstrates, the censorship by Fox should come first. As far as I can tell, your edits deliberately downplayed what occured, which is a neutrality problem that you introduced. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Just because one source fails to document something correctly doesn't mean we delete it." Except that is allowed when the material cited isn't sourced in a proper manner. My role as a Wikipedian editor is to edit existing material according to Wikipedia editing guidelines, not help you find potential sources for content citation. Also the content order of the source cited talks about Field's speech first so that is why it makes sense to present the incident the way I have written it. Gobbleygook (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is incumbent on the editor adding or removing content to do the necessary work. The quote is highly cited, yet you deleted it because you claimed your single source didn't include it. Meanwhile, the full quote in its appropriate context is widely cited, so your rationale doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The content order that you changed doesn't make sense in the way you've ordered it; in fact, the way we write content is to introduce the main points in the first sentence, not at the end. The style that you advocate is non-neutral, and minimizes the incident that occurred and disinforms the readers. When a conservative news source like Politico says "she was getting censored" then you can be sure that you're missing the mark. No, I'm afraid your justification for these changes just don't hold up at all. If you can't improve the text, then there's no reason to edit. You followed me here for no good reason that I can see except to stir up trouble. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

BURDEN only applies if there is actually something to dispute about the content of the revert which doesn't apply in your ridiculous attempt at POV pushing. It doesn't matter if the quote has been widely cited (elsewhere) what matters is how the written material is cited according to the source to which the material is attributed; if other sources include the last bit of Field's speech then include it with the proper citation. Also, the content in Field's speech (regardless of one read's that content) is as important as the censorship by FOX and since Field made the speech first, it makes sense to arrange the incident with an explanation of Field's speech first. (Note that the order of presentation is purely chronological and does not imply importance of the separate events) All the points you've raised have already been addressed in the preceding reply so you should have known to move on from this, but it seems as though you have difficulty with your reading comprehension skills so it is unsurprising you're bringing this up again and again. Gobbleygook (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You've been corrected on this point. Did you fix your edits after being shown the error of your ways, or is the article still inaccurate? Your claim that the content of her speech is as important as the censorship is ridiculous. The only reason this received news coverage is because Fox censored it. Nobody cares about the content. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before my job as a Wikipedia editor isn't to do your job for you so if other sources include the last bit of Field's speech then you include it with the proper citation. Also it helps if you think this through logically, if the content isn't important then the incident wouldn't have happened in the first place. Gobbleygook (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

In response to Winkelvi. There was no editing out of content, just a re-wording and slight addition to what was already there. As it stands the lead section states she won Golden Globe, SAG and Cannes awards, but doesn't say what for, so my edits simply clarified this and when doing this I put the info into a more chronological order so that the info flowed better, which I think is a good thing. I'm not sure that constitutes "major changes". The Cannes actress page is titled Best Actress (Cannes Film Festival), and the official Cannes website calls the award Best Actress, so what is the problem with changing the link wording from Best Female Performance to Best Actress? Your reasons given for the lead section reverts stated (quite rightly) that it was because minor roles don't belong in the lead, so I removed the Moon Pilot info. I also don't think it is controversial to briefly mention Absence of Malice and Murphy's Romance in the lead (both widely praised Golden Globe nominated performances). I think my edits improved the lead. You said that minor info didn't belong there, I removed it, so without that info, as I have asked before, what other issues did you have with my lead edits? As many people only read the lead section of articles, isn't it better to clarify what roles won her certain stated awards?. L1975p (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

L1975p: The lead paragraph is meant to be a summary, a synopsis, a snapshot, not a detailed compilation. Her awards are listed in a separate section where the details on the awards belong. Further, the lead paragraph isn't meant to be a large list of films, and adding more and more for an actress or actor with as many credits as Sally Field can be problematic and creates "bloat". It's natural for editors to want to add their favorite movies to an actor's bio article, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Remember, there is a list of her films already in the article. Further, we have no way of knowing what readers look at, so claiming readers mostly only look at the lead paragraph is unmeasurable and not really a valid argument. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I understand that the lead is meant to be a summary, but it is also supposed to "stand on its own as a concise version of the article", and I think it would stand better by actually stating what those awards were for. As it stands, the lead is around 210 words, my version only added 30 words, so in no way was I making the lead a "detailed compilation". For the record, I never claimed that "readers mostly only look at the lead paragraph", I said many do, which is what it says at MOS Lead section. I do think my most recent edit to the page, improved it, and done so in a concise way (still under 250 words), I still think the wording to the Cannes Best Actress link should be changed (you made no mention of it), and I still think my more chronological wording of the second paragraph in the lead, better helps the lead stand on its own. As for adding two films, as the page stands, the lead mentions 14 of her film & TV roles, my version mentioned 16, which for an actress with more than 60 film & TV credits, makes the lead nowhere near bloated. You say the line has to be drawn somewhere, so I propose drawing it at 16, not 14. I did not add those two films because they are my favourites (I have seen neither) but because they are two prominent leading roles from her busiest film decade. I was also not looking to edit war and your first revert was perfectly valid, which I acknowledged, while the second correctly said that minor info should not be in the lead, which I removed. My most recent edit to the lead was a summary of the main article with no minor/trivial info, and as I previously stated, had only increased a short lead section by about 30 words. L1975p (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

14 is too many, as well. I will likely be paring it down when I am at my computer tonight. As well as looking more closely at the entire article for what can be deleted, copyedited, etc. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the amount of films in the lead is too many, not when talking about an actress with a 50 year career, and my interest here is with the lead section, not the entire article. I don't think the lead needs to become any shorter. With respect, my issue is not with what you might be pairing it down to (not yet anyway), I'm here to make the case for my most recent edit, which was reverted. Your main objection seems to be about it being too long. Currently, the lead has a seven line sentence "She has also won two Golden Globes", Since the Globe wins are for the same films as her Oscar wins, I replaced that with "both roles won her Golden Globe Awards". A sentence that gives out more info, without taking up any more space. The same can be said for the sentence "as well as the Best Female Performance Prize at the Cannes film festival" which was replaced with "Norma Rae also won her the Best Actress Prize at the Cannes film Festival". Again, a sentence of similar size that gives out more info (the extra info being that it clarifies what she won those awards for). Also, info such as her Brothers & Sisters character name and the BAFTA, GG & SAG nominations for Lincoln, could be better things to remove, rather than film credits. L1975p (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

When I responded earlier today I did so without being able to take time to look at the article before responding. When I read your comments about 14 films in the lead, I had the impression that there was a list of 14 films in the lead. I see now that's not the case and that there are 14 films mentioned throughout the lead. You're right, in that manner, it's not too many. All that said, please look at a comparable BLP actor's article on Tom Hanks. The lead is well-written and not over-run and bloated with specifics on too many awards or films. It's a good article lede to model this article lede on. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'm fine with you modelling the lead of this page after the Tom Hanks one, as I see that the Hanks lead mentions 16 film & TV roles, which is the same amount as my last edit on this page, so hopefully there will be room for Absence of Malice and Murphy's Romance. The Hanks lead also explicitly mentions what roles won him two of his Golden Globes, again a proposal of mine here is to mention what films Field won her Golden Globe awards for (plus Cannes), especially since its the same two films as her Oscar wins. I would also imagine (or hope) that the info stating what she won her three Emmys for is retained, and the Oscar nomination for Lincoln, which is info that was all there before my edit. L1975p (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for Lincoln...not so much. It's a nomination. She's already got two wins. A nom without a win for a two-time winner is really not worthy of the lead. Absence of Malice and Murphy's Romance: were they critically acclaimed or were they more like box-office winners/fan favorites? In my memory, they were the latter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Iv'e seen numerous good reviews for both films. Absence of Malice earned three Oscar nominations, including for Best Actor & Best Original Screenplay, while Murphy's Romance earned two Oscar nominations, for Best Actor & Best Cinematography. Another reason for adding those particular two, was that they are two (of her eight) film roles to be Golden Globe nominated, and both of them in lead categories. L1975p (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, nominations are not wins. There are other films in the list that were better and more recent -- if you can find a couple that aren't as mention-worthy as Malice and Murphy, then replace them, but please don't add unless they are more mention-worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a case of those two instead of another two. Just three posts ago you said "You're right, in that manner, it's (14) not too many", then directed me to the Tom Hanks page which mentions 16 film/TV credits in the lead, so why not 16 on this page? You asked a question about critical acclaim, and Oscar nominations for Actor/Screenplay/Cinematography, are a pretty solid indicator of that. L1975p (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi. I know its only been a couple of days since your last post, but do you plan to return to this discussion? My last post here two days ago included a question. Or do I take the lack of an answer to mean that you have no objection to Field's lead having the same amount of film/TV credit mentions as the Tom Hanks one? thanks. L1975p (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Been busy IRL. Besides, Wikipedia isn't compulsory. Do as you will. I will likely come behind you and edit after you edit. That's the nature of Wikipedia, after all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm aware that its not compulsory, as no one has forced me to be here for the past four years, but it was you who directed me to this talk page, and I thought the whole point of talk pages was for editors to reach a consensus on what to include. I asked a perfectly valid question, which you have still failed to answer. If I go and re-add certain info to the lead section and you once again revert, then we are back to square one, which begs the question, why come to the talk page in the first place? As no objection was given here, I take it that 16 is fine. I will also retain the Oscar nomination info for Lincoln (info that was already there). L1975p (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit, "For her role in the 2012 film Lincoln, she received her third Academy Award nomination, this time for Best Supporting Actress." is misleading and (as has already been stated) nominations are not lead worthy especially if the article is about someone who has won not one but two Oscars. It's misleading because it implies she has never won. We know that's not the case. But, moreover, because she's a two-time winner, nominations are not noteworthy enough for the lead. Please don't clog it up with trivia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The information is not misleading, not if you read it correctly. From the beginning in this discussion I have given up on the wording issue, as I know you were not keen on mine, which is fine. That's why I tried my best to make it similar to the Tom Hanks lead (not my preference but yours). So my interest here has been the content. I felt (feel) that the Oscar mention for Lincoln was noteworthy, as it is her only other Oscar nomination, and was her first nomination in almost 30 years. I think that info is more noteworthy for the lead than her Brothers & Sisters character name. Also, its only your say so that she's not known for the roles you removed. I asked you here why Murphy's and Malice could not be included, and (my last question) got no response. I put them in and you take one away. Malice was nominated for three Oscars (in major categories) and in it she starred opposite Paul Newman, that is "known" to many people. If its a case of space I think these two things could be mentioned over TV character names, and maybe a third Academy Award nomination for a very high profile film is more noteworthy than winning a SAG award? Finally, (out of interest cause I hope it stays) what was your reason for keeping Murphy but not the others? L1975p (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I read it correctly and it was misleading. Murphy was memorable, Malice wasn't. I've already said several times why the Lincoln nom stays out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A few posts ago, you didn't want either, now you say "Murphy was memorable", and its only one persons opinion (yours) that Malice wasn't memorable. In your next post, you said both films could be added at the expense of two others. You have removed two that were there (Daughter & Spider-Man) so how is there not room for both Murphy & Malice? The Tom Hanks lead, which you wanted to model this one on, has 16 mentions for his 35 year career, you have now cut Field's lead down to 13 mentions for her 50 year career, despite having said earlier that 14 "is not too many". So once again, and based on what we have both said in this discussion, I propose that Malice be added. L1975p (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your "proposal" wasn't responded to, yet you went ahead and put Malice back in? There's no deadline in Wikipedia. What's your hurry? I've done a quick perusal of Sally Field films and am so far hard-pressed to find a list of her movies that puts Malice in the top-10. Perhaps you have sources that say otherwise? It seems reasonable to me that if there are 3-or-more reliable sources online that list Malice in the top ten of her films, it would be reasonable to put it in the lead paragraph based on that. Otherwise,I say it should stay out of the lead. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I know there's no deadline. If you had not been active elsewhere on Wikipedia, I would not have approached you on the 4th for an answer, and when you did respond you still did not answer my question. Instead you just (unhelpfully) said "do as you will". Similarly, there was no response to my proposal two days ago, again you've found plenty of time to respond elsewhere. Of course its's up to you who you respond to, but it was you who directed me to this talk page, and it would have been helpful and courteous of you to find a few seconds to answer straightforward questions. In this discussion, it was you who said both Murphy and Malice could be added, at the expense of two less mention-worthy films, you removed two, I then added Murphy and Malice, yet you removed the latter. You also said 14 film/TV mentions is fine, but now you are only allowing 13. Now you've found another reason not to add. I think I have compromised plenty in this discussion, you on the other hand, have stated that something would be fine, then when its added, reverted it, and found some other reason not to include it. L1975p (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to you to analyze why I have said what I've said or what I have time to comment on. Please keep the focus of your talk page commenting on content and edits, not editors. Do you have anything constructive to add in regard to the thoughts about Malice and whether or not it's in the top-ten of Field's films? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I know it's not up to me, that's why I said "of course it's up to you who you respond to". My last post was about the edits and included questions, which you have yet again failed to answer. Why was 14 fine earlier (16 if it's modelled on the Hanks lead) but now it has to be 13? Why did you say Malice could be added earlier at the expense of two others, but after two are removed you still don't allow it? The Washington Times has a list of her Top 10 films, and Absence of Malice is at number 4, behind Gump, Doubtfire and Places in the Heart, and ahead of Norma Rae, Smokey and the Bandit and Steel Magnolias. L1975p (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on a specific number of films in the lead. My issue is in putting films in the lead that really aren't her most notable films. Just like my issue has also been putting nominations in the lead because nominations for a two-time Oscar winner isn't lead-notable, it's just another statistic. And there was not "expense" in shedding the lead of two other films, those films were not notable films for her, that's why they were removed. It's not really smart to focus on a particular number of films in the lead but it is smart to try and keep the lead focused on her most notable films. I'm just not convinced Malice is one of them. It was a notable film for Newman, but not really for Field -- especially when she has a substantial list of films that were truly notable for her and far surpass Malice. And all of those are already noted in the lead.

Keep in mind a couple of things: (1) Look at this in perspective and realize that I'm not trying to exclude Malice from the article completely, just the lead; (2) Field is the kind of actress who will likely come out with more notable film roles that would be more worthy than Malice. Bloating the lead with films that really aren't her best is not responsible nor is it necessary. There will be more, in time, and when that happens, Malice will likely get eliminated from the lead anyway BECAUSE her more notable films. That in mind, please remember that Wikipedia articles are never finished. They all get added to and changed over time. At the risk of appearing to not be using AGF, I have to say that you do seem to have an agenda here. An agenda I'm not really clear on, but right now it appears to be an agenda of winning rather than seeing to the article being something that is in line with MOS policy and could attain GA status. While I'm a content deletionist at heart I'm more for being conservative when it comes to areas of content that begin to show signs of bloat. The lead is not supposed to be a never-ending list of films for film stars. Let's try to make sure it doesn't become that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for responding. Thanks for at last addressing questions that I have repeatedly asked. My issue to do with the numbers is because it was you that described the Hanks lead with 16, as "not over-run and bloated", and in reference to this page said that "14 is not too many", now it appears that it is, If Absence of Malice is not notable, regardless of how many films are in the lead, then that is what you should have said here, but you didn't, you said that it could be added at the expense of two less mention-worthy films. I most certainly do not have an agenda and everything I have ever done on Wikipedia has been in good faith, without ever being blocked and only rarely getting into talk page discussions. The continual mention of Absence of Malice here, was nothing to do with an intent on winning, but due to your continual failure to address my questions and moving of the goalposts. I'm well aware that Wikipedia is never finished, and yes, like anybody, Field may appear in more noted work later, then again, she might not, that doesn't mean certain info can't be added now, especially since you had previously said that it could. L1975p (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Actor or actress?

The article uniformly uses the term 'actress' to refer to Ms. Field.

But recent developments, aimed at reducing sexism in the media (e.g., at the New York Times) has changed the normal term for referring to any actor, male or female, as 'actor', and not 'actress' in the case of females.

Ms. Field herself refers to herself as an 'actor', for example on the recent episode of Tavis Smiley that featured her.

There is a problem in the fact that some of the awards that she has received are called, for example, "Best Actress...".

But could we not bring Wikipedia into the twenty-first century by changing the rest of the uses of 'actress' to 'actor' (the ones that are not titles of awards)? That would be consistent with what she calls herself. Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Since she is still alive, are the false reports of her death something that should be mentioned?

In March 2017, there were widespread, but false, reports that she had died (see, for example "Sally Field dead 2017..." at en.mediamass dot net/people/sally-field/deathhoax.html ). I think the fact that these reports aren't true should be mentioned somewhere, partly in case anyone looks at Wikipedia to see if it is true, and partly to prevent someone from editing the article to show her as dead, based on the false reports. However, I'm not sure where in the article this should go? Personal life maybe? 47.139.46.160 (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

does this mean something?

her three sons were mentioned like this: Steven Craig from 1968 to 1975. … Peter Craig (born 1969), a novelist, and Eli Craig (born 1972), an actor and director. second husband Alan Greisman in 1984. Together they had one son, Sam, in 1987. won the Human Rights Campaign's Ally for Equality Award in 2012. Her youngest son, Sam, is openly gay

Aunt Margie (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Aunt Margie

When I met Sally Fields...

I met Sally when she was in Houston, do a made for TV show, on the set she was so kind, and the seen called for her to shoot with a toddler, she was so patience, sweet, and calmed that baby down with a whisper and a lolly pop. That was her magic. She is such a great actress. But more so, a kind soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:8A80:3A76:CED:9953:5A19:333 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2018

Ms. Fields supported TV host Samantha Bee's disgusting reference to Ivanka Trump on air calling her a "feckless c--t. Fields used the word a number of times to show it is a "beautiful" word thereby opening up the reference by men to all women using the same word. Thom McCann (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: for two reasons. First, substantively, this is too much WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Second, no reliable source has been provided. TJRC (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)