Jump to content

Talk:Elisabeth Moss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JDDJS (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 15 June 2019 (→Actor vs actress: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MTV Undressed

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

Actor

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elisabeth_Moss&oldid=901897322"