Talk:Actress (disambiguation)
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Popculturemaven in topic 'Actor' / 'Actress' - different terms, NOT interchangeable
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
'Actor' / 'Actress' - different terms, NOT interchangeable
editThis page claims that: “Actress is a term used interchangeably with “actor” for a female performer in films, plays, radio and TV.” This is false; the terms ‘actor’ and ‘actress’ are distinct categories and are NOT interchangeable. I am proposing an edit of this page to remove this invalid ‘Actor' and ‘Actress' are different terms, commonly ascribed to performers based on their biological sex and/or self-assigned gender.
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, undeniably false, and an unacceptable modification of specific, separate, distinct terms. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Disagree If the person states what they want to be called "she, he, they", "actor" or "actress" that is what Wikipedia should use. We shouldn't be shoehorning people into boxes. See wp:SELFIDENTITY Jim1138 talk 05:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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) 15:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the policies at wp:SELFIDENTITY quite clearly state: "Use specific terminology. For example, it is often more appropriate for people or things from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African." Based on this example, it would be more appropriate to use the specific terms 'actor' OR 'actress', based on the sex or gender of the individual - not carelessly referring to people who were not born as or don't identify as male 'actors'. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- In this day and age actor is a gender neutral term that can refer to either a man or a woman. The Merriam-Webster definition here [1] especially its 1st example of usage in a sentence "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here [2], here [3] and here [4] all of which use gender neutral definitions. Writing style guide [5]. While many awards presentations use both terms the Screen Actors Guild only uses actor - see Screen Actors Guild Award#Categories. MarnetteD|Talk 05:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Actor is NOT a gender-neutral term. Actress is NOT a gender-neutral term. You can use definitions from Merriam-Webster, but not words from the examples (as I have been informed and scolded for doing such myself). Your 2nd reference is from dictionary.com, which I have been told is not a reliable resource. Your 3rd reference uses gender-specific pronouns when describing ‘actor’, and provides examples such as “HE’s a principal actor in this affair”, “HE’s a miracle worker”, as well as a Legal Definition: 1. A plaintiff or complainant. 2. HE on whom the burden of proof lies.; 2 out of your 4 dictionary references you provided contradict your argument or are unreliable, and the other does not explicitly state that the terms ‘actor’ and ‘actress’ are interchangeable. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- You can shout all you want but that does not change the way things are today. You obviously did not read the style guide where it states "So we use actor or comedian for women as well as men, not actress or comedienne" You have presented zero outside sources so your need for misogyny is not a reason to change the description on this page. MarnetteD|Talk 16:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I can “shout all (I) want”? Where do you think I was I ‘shouting’? I didn’t read the “style guide” because I don’t believe it to be a relevant source. I haven’t presented any outside sources because YOUR sources directly contradict your own statements.
- My “need for misogyny” does not exist, and even if I had this “need”, it has nothing to do with this article.
- I would appreciate if you refrain from disrespectful personal attacks and support your argument with reliable sources that support your claims - but if you want to include references that support my side of the argument, as half of your sources already have, be my guest. The reason to change the description on this page is based in fact, not feelings, and making accusations will not change that. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- All caps is shouting. The Manchester Style Guide nor relevant? Since when. Looks like a WP:CIR situation. You have presented zero sources to support your facts so - no - the page does not need changing. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- "All caps is shouting." Where exactly are you saying I used "All caps"? I have "presented zero sources to support my facts" - but you did, actually, as I have already pointed out. "Your 3rd reference uses gender-specific pronouns when describing ‘actor’, and provides examples such as “HE’s a principal actor in this affair”, “HE’s a miracle worker”, as well as a Legal Definition: 1. A plaintiff or complainant. 2. HE on whom the burden of proof lies."" The information provided by this source supports my suggestion that the page should be changed to reflect the appropriate usage of the terminology. Do you have any other reliable sources that contradict this? If the 'Manchester Style Guide' IS relevant, and provides reliable information that contradicts my statements, it must then be decided which source is more reliable. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Look at the way you typed the word not - that is shouting. You have provided no sources to support your statements thus WP:CIR still applies. MarnetteD|Talk 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, capitalizing one word is emphasis. "All caps" means ALL caps, for instance: THIS IS SHOUTING, whereas THIS is emphasis. I have not provided a source, because a source that YOU provided supports my statements. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Look at the way you typed the word not - that is shouting. You have provided no sources to support your statements thus WP:CIR still applies. MarnetteD|Talk 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- "All caps is shouting." Where exactly are you saying I used "All caps"? I have "presented zero sources to support my facts" - but you did, actually, as I have already pointed out. "Your 3rd reference uses gender-specific pronouns when describing ‘actor’, and provides examples such as “HE’s a principal actor in this affair”, “HE’s a miracle worker”, as well as a Legal Definition: 1. A plaintiff or complainant. 2. HE on whom the burden of proof lies."" The information provided by this source supports my suggestion that the page should be changed to reflect the appropriate usage of the terminology. Do you have any other reliable sources that contradict this? If the 'Manchester Style Guide' IS relevant, and provides reliable information that contradicts my statements, it must then be decided which source is more reliable. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- All caps is shouting. The Manchester Style Guide nor relevant? Since when. Looks like a WP:CIR situation. You have presented zero sources to support your facts so - no - the page does not need changing. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- You can shout all you want but that does not change the way things are today. You obviously did not read the style guide where it states "So we use actor or comedian for women as well as men, not actress or comedienne" You have presented zero outside sources so your need for misogyny is not a reason to change the description on this page. MarnetteD|Talk 16:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Actor is NOT a gender-neutral term. Actress is NOT a gender-neutral term. You can use definitions from Merriam-Webster, but not words from the examples (as I have been informed and scolded for doing such myself). Your 2nd reference is from dictionary.com, which I have been told is not a reliable resource. Your 3rd reference uses gender-specific pronouns when describing ‘actor’, and provides examples such as “HE’s a principal actor in this affair”, “HE’s a miracle worker”, as well as a Legal Definition: 1. A plaintiff or complainant. 2. HE on whom the burden of proof lies.; 2 out of your 4 dictionary references you provided contradict your argument or are unreliable, and the other does not explicitly state that the terms ‘actor’ and ‘actress’ are interchangeable. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- The terms are used interchangeably about female actors, but not about male actors. That is a fact of contemporary English. We don't use historical or archaic forms of the language, and the existence of award categories is not a reliable guide to language use anywhere - that is not the purpose of auch category names. The current phrasing is good and should remain. --bonadea contributions talk 17:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- What of the source that uses gender-specific pronouns when describing the term ‘actor’, and provides examples (such as “HE’s a principal actor in this affair”, “HE’s a miracle worker”, as well as a Legal Definition: 1. A plaintiff or complainant. 2. HE on whom the burden of proof lies.)?
- The terms are NOT interchangeable. This is a FACT of specific terminology in the English language. This is not an archaic or historical form of the language, it is the current language.
- What is the purpose of "auch category names" ('such'?)?
- The current phrasing is false and does not reflect the specificity of the term. It does not mention that the terms "are used interchangeably about female actors, but not about male actors"; where are you getting this incorrect description? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, I made a spelling error. Thank you for catching it. :-) I'm afraid that your assertions are, quite simply, incorrect regarding contemporary language. In the OED we read "Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term." (In other words, "actress" is not obsolete, but "actor" may be used for both genders, and to pretend that it may not is to use archaic language. Your claim elsewhere that "actress" should be used about male actors looks very much like tendentious editing). As for your question about
the source that uses gender-specific pronouns when describing the term ‘actor’
, you seem to refer to this, where the definition of "actor" as in "theatre actor" explicitly states "The term actor is almost universally used nowadays to refer to people of either gender who act", but the two usage examples for "actor" as in "doer" use "he". The OED points out that for female "doers", the term "actor" is invariably used, it's never "actress" in that sense. So no, that does not support your claim in any way. --bonadea contributions talk 17:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, I made a spelling error. Thank you for catching it. :-) I'm afraid that your assertions are, quite simply, incorrect regarding contemporary language. In the OED we read "Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term." (In other words, "actress" is not obsolete, but "actor" may be used for both genders, and to pretend that it may not is to use archaic language. Your claim elsewhere that "actress" should be used about male actors looks very much like tendentious editing). As for your question about
- I was not referring to the source you mention. I was referring to this source [6], in which there is no implication that the term may be used for females, and provides several usage examples with gender-specific pronouns. ""Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often restricted to men" - if the term 'actor' was used interchangeably after the 'Restoration of 1660', and 'later' (after that) the term 'actor' was restricted to men, then the most recent usage 'was often restricted to men'. You don't provide any information that reverts the term to it's previous condition of 'used to describe female performers', thus the most recent usage you reference does support my argument that the terms 'actor' and 'actress' are NOT interchangeable. Even if the term 'actor' is "increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term", the preferences of individuals in the industry are irrelevant. 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 titles. If people are allowed to assign titles to themselves without justification, the titles lose their meaning. For instance, if I state that I want to be called “President”, “Senator”, “Doctor”, “Captain”, et cetera, you (and Wikipedia) would be required to refer to me as such, based on your assertion that the preference of an individual outweighs the definition of the title. Thank you for your input, I look forward to your next response and hope that we can clear up the discrepancies here to achieve consensus. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, webster-dictionary.org is not a particularly strong source compared to the other dictionary sources we have provided here, but in any case I fail to see any gender-specific pronouns in its definitions of "actor" as "theatrical performer" (which is what we are discussing). As for the OED quote I provided, after the snippet you quote above, it goes on to say "Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term." This makes it very clear indeed that "actor" is used for both male and female performers in contemporary English usage. (And if you look at the headword "actor" in the OED you'll find examples where the word is used about females, as well as examples where it is used about males.) There is no mention of "preferences of individuals in the industry", and nobody has claimed that individual idiosyncracies should outweigh general definitions and usage - that's a straw man. General preferences of groups of individuals in the industry would, of course, be a relevant consideration, but the OED does not in fact mention that either. The word "preferred" refers to preferences within general language usage. (It is normal usage of the term "preferred" in linguistics - we say that a word is preferred or dispreferred, where the latter means that it tends to be avoided by native language speakers.) Finally, remember that we don't pick sources that suit our own preferences for Wikipedia - we look at what the sources say, and base the articles on that. Why is this even an issue? --bonadea contributions talk 19:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- First off, thank you for taking the time to explain your opinion and stance on this matter in a respectful way. You are the first person to do so.
- My response is as follows: "And if you look at the headword "actor" in the OED you'll find examples where the word is used about females, as well as examples where it is used about males.” - the definition of a term does not change just because the term is incorrectly used. In formal writing, coordinating conjunctions (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) are disapproved as sentence starting words. Normally I would not nitpick, but since this conflict is regarding specificity of terminology and linguistic precision, ignoring this rule makes me question your linguistic capabilities.
- I brought up ‘preferences of individuals in the industry’ in response to the comment stating "If the person states what they want to be called "she, he, they", "actor" or "actress" that is what Wikipedia should use.” 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 titles.
- The comment suggesting that Wikipedia should use the title based on an individuals statement seems to directly conflict with your statement that "nobody has claimed that individual idiosyncracies should outweigh general definitions and usage”.
- If you look at the information presented in the article, and exclude my argument (that ‘actress’ is the appropriate term for females and ‘actor’ is the appropriate term for males) the article’s statement is still factually incorrect; "Actress is a term used interchangeably with "actor" for a female performer in films, plays, radio and TV.” This is false, based on your argument, because the terms are NOT interchangeable ("capable of being put or used in the place of each other”) if ‘actresses’ can be referred to as ‘actors’ while ‘actors’ can not be referred to as ‘actresses’. Regardless of my argument, the wording should be corrected. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, webster-dictionary.org is not a particularly strong source compared to the other dictionary sources we have provided here, but in any case I fail to see any gender-specific pronouns in its definitions of "actor" as "theatrical performer" (which is what we are discussing). As for the OED quote I provided, after the snippet you quote above, it goes on to say "Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term." This makes it very clear indeed that "actor" is used for both male and female performers in contemporary English usage. (And if you look at the headword "actor" in the OED you'll find examples where the word is used about females, as well as examples where it is used about males.) There is no mention of "preferences of individuals in the industry", and nobody has claimed that individual idiosyncracies should outweigh general definitions and usage - that's a straw man. General preferences of groups of individuals in the industry would, of course, be a relevant consideration, but the OED does not in fact mention that either. The word "preferred" refers to preferences within general language usage. (It is normal usage of the term "preferred" in linguistics - we say that a word is preferred or dispreferred, where the latter means that it tends to be avoided by native language speakers.) Finally, remember that we don't pick sources that suit our own preferences for Wikipedia - we look at what the sources say, and base the articles on that. Why is this even an issue? --bonadea contributions talk 19:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I was not referring to the source you mention. I was referring to this source [6], in which there is no implication that the term may be used for females, and provides several usage examples with gender-specific pronouns. ""Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often restricted to men" - if the term 'actor' was used interchangeably after the 'Restoration of 1660', and 'later' (after that) the term 'actor' was restricted to men, then the most recent usage 'was often restricted to men'. You don't provide any information that reverts the term to it's previous condition of 'used to describe female performers', thus the most recent usage you reference does support my argument that the terms 'actor' and 'actress' are NOT interchangeable. Even if the term 'actor' is "increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term", the preferences of individuals in the industry are irrelevant. 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 titles. If people are allowed to assign titles to themselves without justification, the titles lose their meaning. For instance, if I state that I want to be called “President”, “Senator”, “Doctor”, “Captain”, et cetera, you (and Wikipedia) would be required to refer to me as such, based on your assertion that the preference of an individual outweighs the definition of the title. Thank you for your input, I look forward to your next response and hope that we can clear up the discrepancies here to achieve consensus. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Usually an editor who displays such a clear case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT is not worth responding to. I will make a few points at this time though. First, not a single WP:RS has been provided to support their assertion - I have mentioned this before. Copy and pasting the same statements over and over again does not change that fact. Second, three editors (now four - I missed Softlavender's post below) have disagreed with the assertion and that meets the criteria for a WP:CONSENSUS to leave the description as it is. Claiming that "X number of days has past" since anyone responded so now I get to change the description against this consensus is not the way things work here. FWIW on ComCast the cast listings for every film and TV show uses the term actor for men and women. Documentaries like The Celluloid Closet and John Leguizamo’s Road to Broadway also use actor for men and women. So yes the terms are interchangeable. Anyone is free to file a WP:RFC but until that happens there isn't anything left to do here. MarnetteD|Talk 06:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Again I reiterate, since you keep seeming to forget or not understand this basic concept: if something/someone is incorrectly labeled or given an inaccurate title, the definition and specificity of the misappropriated title does not change to accommodate the improper usage. "Claiming that "X number of days has past" since anyone responded so now I get to change the description against this consensus is not the way things work here." I never suggested that it was. Claiming that I changed the description against the consensus after '4 editors disagreed with' my assertion is FALSE. 'Softlavender' responded at 08:01 TODAY - so saying that I 'claimed that I get to change the description against this consensus' doesn't hold up when the consensus was only made today, after I had mentioned the 17 day time span since comments. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Stop flogging the dead horse. There was a consensus which you edited against, and the consensus against your edit became strengthened after you restored it - but you knew that already. Your "basic concept" is not applicable because it is just a reiteration of your own personal notions of "improper usage" and "misappropriation". I have two suggestions. One is that you accept that your interpretation is not in line with the consensus (if you don't, you will soon be seen as actively disruptive). The other one is that you read up a little on semantic field theory, specifically on sense relations - provided, of course, that you are interested in how language actually works and not just in personal prescriptivist notions of how it ought to work. For the record, I'm not wasting more time on this non-discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is behind the times. Songstress is out. Authoress and poetess too. But somehow there are rigid people who demand that "actress" remain. Yet, the actors themselves use "actor." Why are we beholden to the gender rigidity of some Wikipedians on this? Shouldn't Wikipedia move on from a sexist term if the actors themselves are? Why is this an argument? Back in the day, "ess" with artists connoted lesser than, even slutty. I don't care about anyone's personal opinion on cis and trans and genetics. The field itself is in the process of moving on, without Wikipedia reporting it. Why is it so old-fashioned here? Well, I know the answer, but sheesh. Popculturemaven — Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus Impossible?
editHow am I supposed to achieve consensus when the person repeatedly reverting JUSTIFIED edits refuses to respond? They (MarnetteD) gave me a 'warning' on my talk page with instructions: "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them." Yet when I try to follow these instructions, the user removes my attempt to discuss the matter on their talk page, refuses to respond to me on the article's talk page, and continues to revert my edit. Am I missing something here??? This is paradoxical, (MarnetteD). Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- If there is no consensus for your change, then leave it the way it was before the change. I agree with the original succinct wording, so there is a distinct consensus against your change. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- How can you possibly agree with the "original succinct wording"? The terminology is incorrect; it states that the terms 'actor' and 'actress' are 'interchangeable' - they simply are not. My edit clarifies this and removes the incorrect term. If the terms were truly interchangeable, it would be appropriate to refer to 'actors' as 'actresses' and vice versa - it seems that the general consensus is that both terms may be used for females (which I personally disagree with, explained in the other section on the talk page) but only 'actor' for males, thus by very definition the terms are NOT 'interchangeable'. Please explain to me how you believe this is incorrect. Thank you for your time and input. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- The tems are used interchangeably for female performers. --bonadea contributions talk 07:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- They aren't interchangeable, regardless of how often they are misused; if you get enough people to claim that the sky is red, it doesn't suddenly make it so. 'Actor' and 'Actress' are specific terms. HOWEVER, even if these two terms were both appropriate for female performers, they aren't interchangeable titles. So I'm really not sure what the point of your comment was... Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Chimchongchiggedydo, your opinion is noted; you have repeated it numerous times. However it does not match the very evident consensus among Wikipedia editors, and Wikipedia operates by consensus. Therefore, if you continue to repeat your opinion, it will have no effect on the text of the article page, and editors will eventually simply ignore you, because the consensus at this point is very clear. Moreover, if the community determines that your repeated insistence on your point of view is disruptive, you could possibly be reported to administrators and blocked for disruption. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- My "opinion is noted', yet you don't seem to understand this suggested edit despite it being "repeated it numerous times". The suggested edit this section is regarding is NOT based on my point of view or personal opinions, but rather due to the objectively inaccurate terminology used.
- My opinionated, subjective point of view is that actors are actors, actresses are actresses, and the titles represent specific, distinct categories. Again, that is NOT what this section is regarding.
- The "very evident consensus" you (and other editors) have voiced seems to conflate two distinct issues, ignoring the objective correction of terminology because you disagree with my other suggested edit (which you consider to be my subjective opinion). I hope this helps you to understand the difference between these two arguments, and why it is necessary to achieve consensus regarding each issue separately. I understand that general consensus has disagreed with my personal opinion, but this consensus does not carry over to the issue of objectively inaccurate statements. Please advise, thanks. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Chimchongchiggedydo, your opinion is noted; you have repeated it numerous times. However it does not match the very evident consensus among Wikipedia editors, and Wikipedia operates by consensus. Therefore, if you continue to repeat your opinion, it will have no effect on the text of the article page, and editors will eventually simply ignore you, because the consensus at this point is very clear. Moreover, if the community determines that your repeated insistence on your point of view is disruptive, you could possibly be reported to administrators and blocked for disruption. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- They aren't interchangeable, regardless of how often they are misused; if you get enough people to claim that the sky is red, it doesn't suddenly make it so. 'Actor' and 'Actress' are specific terms. HOWEVER, even if these two terms were both appropriate for female performers, they aren't interchangeable titles. So I'm really not sure what the point of your comment was... Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- The tems are used interchangeably for female performers. --bonadea contributions talk 07:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- How can you possibly agree with the "original succinct wording"? The terminology is incorrect; it states that the terms 'actor' and 'actress' are 'interchangeable' - they simply are not. My edit clarifies this and removes the incorrect term. If the terms were truly interchangeable, it would be appropriate to refer to 'actors' as 'actresses' and vice versa - it seems that the general consensus is that both terms may be used for females (which I personally disagree with, explained in the other section on the talk page) but only 'actor' for males, thus by very definition the terms are NOT 'interchangeable'. Please explain to me how you believe this is incorrect. Thank you for your time and input. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)