Talk:Hong Chau/Archive 1

Archive 1

Accolades

Greenock125, please see the following justifications:

• Inherent Vice does not belong in "Accolades" because Hong Chau was not part of the "ensemble cast" for this award; see this
• "Film" is simpler to use than "Nominated work"
• "Award" is for the award itself, not the organization that presents them
• There should be access to the full awards page for that year (no need to link to the awards page in general)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Actor vs. actress

JDDJS wants this article to use the gendered noun "actress" instead of the gender-neutral noun "actor" to describe Hong Chau. I reverted per WP:WAW, which states, "Use gender-neutral nouns when describing professions and positions: actor, etc." JJDS dismissed the passage as being from an essay (as editors who don't like an argument are wont to do), but this is stemmed from the guideline MOS:GNL, which says, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." The editor claims that the use of "actress" elsewhere on Wikipedia in spite of this guideline is more relevant (in other words, other stuff exists) and also empowers them to force "actress" instead of "actor" to be used everywhere. Wikipedia is actually muddled on this matter. The link actress redirects to actor. The category Category:Film actresses has its opposite in Category:Male film actors, where it should be actor vs. actress and male actor vs. female actor. Is it necessary for JJDS to enforce their perspective everywhere and perpetuate the gendered approach? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTSOAPBOX applies here... in both directions. The first thing we should do is look at how reliable independent sources refer to her. (is either “actor” or “actress” more common?) If one is more commonly used, we should follow the sources. If the independent sources are mixed, we should then look at dependent sources to see “how does the subject refer to herself?” (As an “Actor” or “Actress”). We should only impose our own preference if neither of these examinations of sources can resolve the question. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This says that she calls herself an actor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That same source referrers to her as an actress. JDDJS (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If I were writing for the Los Angeles Times, I'd follow their style. If I were writing for Wikipedia I'd follow ours. I'd use gender neutral terms unless the subject of the article has another preference. In that article she refers to herself as an "actor". Are there other sources which say she prefers "actress"?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The key to determining commonality of usage in sources is to look at A LOT of sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

She's up for 4 awards, 3 are actress awards as stated by the award name, 1 is female actor which is pretty much a synonym for actress. Unlike a lot of gendered occupation names the female form for a person who acts is not a diminution of the male term and carries the same prestige. This is reflected in the English Wikipedia category debates where it was chosen to use actress in the acting categories for women and male actor for the men. There is no reason to not describe her as an actress in this article, it is not an insulting term. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Who cares what house style the awards use or whether actress is considered by some to be non-diminutive. We have our own house style, one that favors the gender-neutral term unless there is evidence that Chau herself has a preference for "actress" over "actor". So counting sources is irrelevant unless those sources are quoting her on what she calls herself, and even in those cases we have to be careful that the quote hasn't been edited by someone else to use different language. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Given we have categories for actress and looking at all the category discussions about this topic the actual de facto style on Wikipedia is to use actress to describe women who act. Not the first time a general style guideline conflicts with actual practice. Actress is a well used exception on Wikipedia to the general gender neutral occupation title preference. The fact that most of the major awards including the Oscars and Emmys use actress as well show it is still the industry preference. Acting is one of the few jobs where the female gendered role name is not a pejorative. As to demonstrate actual Wikipedia preferred usage see Wikipedia:Featured articles § Media biographies for how women who act are described in the intro to their bio articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment While using gender neutral pronouns is absolutely the correct approach for many occupations (we simply don't gain anything from doctress/songstress/comedienne) male actors and acresses are different occupations to a degree, because they usually take on different roles that are by and large not interchangeable. When identifying the person's occupation in the lead for the first time, and in the infobox, we should use "actress" for female actors. A person's gender is not always obvious from their name (as is the case here) and if there is no photo the explicit identification of the person's gender could be helpful to readers. After that the distinction is generally not important and we can generally use "actor" throughout the rest of the article, except in the case of a couple of exceptions:
  • If we are referring to something intrinsic to being an actress (such as awards, or Forbes' highest paid actress list etc) we should use the term "actress" in those cases. Winning a "best actress" oscar is not the same as winning a "best actor" oscar and we shouldn't erode that distinction.
  • Sometimes I see the phrase "female actor" in the media, and occasionally here. This is absurd and self-defeating. The whole point of gender neutrality is to not bring in the person's gender where it is not needed, so describing somebody as a "female actor" isn't any better than "actress". There is a perfectly acceptable word for "female actor", so in such cases we should just go with "actress".

MOS:GNL states we should only use gender-neutral language if we can do so unambiguously, so we should always bear in mind whether knowing the person's gender is useful to readers in a particular context, and whether there is a real-world gender distinction in what we are covering. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Avoid inapplicable arguments: Re: "we should then look at dependent sources to see" – No, we shouldn't. That's the WP:Common-style fallacy. Reliable sources about a subject tell us facts about them like where they were born; they are not reliable sources for how best to write English about that subject for a general audience, because they are not linguistic authorities, and they are following their own house styles. If WP just mimicked the style in sources, we would have no style guide at all, an all our articles on pop culture topics would read exactly like E! and Rolling Stone and People magazine articles, while all our articles on science would be impenetrably obtuse language of academic journals. It does not work that way, not now, not ever. We have a style guide for a reason.

  The status quo: As it turns out, there is no consensus on WP to stop using actress. This has been discussed to death on page after page, without a good centralized discussion. We still categorize this way, and the distinction has been retained because a) it's still the predominant pattern in English usage (for actress in particular, not all gendered occupational terms by any means – when's the last time you heard of an aviatrix?), and b) the industry (from live theatre to films and television) maintains it sharply, with different and awards and such. That might (probably won't) change soon, but it has not yet.

  The nature of the dispute (aside from outright WP:NOT#ADVOCACY stuff): Our categorization and our not "banning" the gendered term doesn't magically mean it's required to use it in any given article. If we have sourcing that shows that the subject herself consistently uses actor, that's a good commonsense reason – in the spirit of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:IDENTITY – to use it here. You may be unware of it, but I and other stewards of MoS have strongly advocated against MOS:IDENTITY growing with long litany of detailed cases; the entire point of that section's brevity is that transgendered people and Arabs are two clear examples, and what do in general should be obvious from them. We're assuming the rest of the editorship can figure that out without being browbeating with a mile-long list of examples. Please don't prove us wrong. Anyway, absent not serious evidence one way or the otehr about Hong Chau's preferences (a single quote doesn't cut it), there's no reason to argue and argue about it, most especially not in binary, false-duality terms suggesting that it "must" be one way or the other on Wikipedia. See MOS:RETAIN: If consensus cannot be reached, default to the status quo ante, going all the way back to the first post-stub version to find out which style ("actor" or "actress") was first used if you have to.

  How to really resolve this: If an agreement can't be reached, just open an RfC on it. Preferably, open a genericized (not Hong Chau-specific) RfC at WP:VPPOL, asking whether to prefer actor or actress and also ask whether a determining, considered, or ignored factor is the subject's own preference (per WP:ABOUTSELF policy and the intent of the MOS:IDENTITY guideline) as identified in self-published material and interviews published in multiple independent publications. An RfC like that would go a long way to ending recurrent article-by-article dispute about this, which is something none of us want to be doing again and again.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Credits

Rusted AutoParts, I understand that you put in the effort to list every single role she has ever had, but most of the roles were bit roles. Secondary sources almost never discuss these, and it obfuscates which roles are noteworthy. What is listed in the shorter presentation are the ones that have been brought up often. I recommend getting a third opinion per WP:3O. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no present consensus that blocks the addition of her filmography. The one used presently is way too bare bones. I'm in complete disagreement of this filmography as it fails to fall into consistency with countless other Wikipedia articles that contain this information. Why is it suddenly not allowed here? How is it too excessive to include her filmography? And @Erik: you may have rejected my edit, but I rejected your reversal. You should have done the less obstructive thing and discussed it first instead of reverting again. Rusted AutoParts 00:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

When has it mattered if her bit parts were discussed in sources to be included in her filmography? Rusted AutoParts 00:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no consensus for a universal presentation; they have varied across Wikipedia depending on the person. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is applicable; it is not noteworthy to mention every bit role that Hong Chau had, since it obfuscates the recurring roles that she had in TV and the recent film roles. The bit roles can be readily collapsed into a sentence or two. I've posted at WP:3O about this matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Listing roles discriminately is supported by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines, which indicates filmographies and says: "The content of a list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies, and that for people inclusion should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)." There is no due weight to include bit roles in comparison to the other roles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I hate inconsistency. It’s probsbly my biggest pet peeve. This wouldn’t be an issue for me if I didn’t see countless other filmographies that contain the actors filmography, be it from bit cameos to leading roles. If it’s decided to exclude minor 1 episode parts fine but it should be for all actor filmographies as opposed to a select few. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I get that, but I think such tables have always varied. Some people have simply a bulleted list, some people don't include role names or directors (which I think is extraneous for a person's bio), etc. Let's see what the third opinion is. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Both versions look fine, imo. But if WP:INDISCRIMINATE is still as issue, consider spinning that section out into a new article called Hong Chau filmography. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thailand

I removed Thailand as her birth place, considering that her parents are Vietnamese and that she grew up almost entirely in the United States. Nor is there any indication in any reliable sources that she identifies as Thai or as being from Thailand. In the same vein, I think she is properly categorized as a Vietnamese emigrant to the United States, not a Thai one. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

She has never lived in Vietnam. She came to America from Thailand, thus that is the correct category for her. Now she shouldn't be put in any other categories for Thailand unless she says she identifies as Thai. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Why bother with any Thailand indicators? It is not a meaningful characteristic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel where she was born is a meaningful characteristic. Saying that she's a Vietnamese immigrant incorrectly implies that she was born in Vietnam, which she was not. Not including immigrant at all implies she was American citizen at birth, which is also incorrect. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Thai emigrants to the United States‎ is a sub-category of Category:American people of Thai descent. She is not of Thai descent, which confirms my objection to this category being included inappropriately. The category does not belong. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Denied

Response to third opinion request:

This does not meet the requirements for a third opinion. The discussion needs to be between 2 people and you asked for a third opinion on a conversation that is over a year old. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an active dispute. It occurred back in January 2019 and has reoccurred this month. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: I am responding to the third opinion request posted today. From what I see, the Thai emigrants to the United States category include mainly ethnic Thai people. According to the sources in the article (Rolling Stone article for example), she states that she was born in Thailand however there is no indication she identifies as Thai. She says her parents were boat people who were being housed in a Thai refugee camp where she was born. For that reason, I would lean towards removing the category from the article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Greying out unsused sections

@Erik: there’s no need for those grey blocks. We don’t need to fill that space just for the sake of it. It’s not a common practice utilized in the majority of other filmographies so why are you insisting it here? Rusted AutoParts 04:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've seen various tables use grayed-out shading when there is nothing in it. There's no rule one way or another, so why fuss? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks bad. What if there’s a reason to keep a note in, it would look terrible having a bunch of grey bars. Filling space for the sake o it is just needless. And even if “various tables” do it, it’s certainly few and far between. Rusted AutoParts 04:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Erik: and if there’s no rule one way or another, which suggests that they aren’t necessary as well, then why is it being insisted on? Rusted AutoParts 17:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I reverted here a large set of unexplained edits, many of which did not improve the article. Problems with these edits include:

• Calling Downsizing a drama film in the lead section
• Lead section combines all her film appearances claiming that she was equally "starring" in all of them
• Removed Chau's personal background from the lead section entirely
• Unnecessarily skinny paragraph created in "Career" with one sentence losing its reference tag
• Removing red link to the play John in violation of WP:REDLINK
• Inappropriate re-structuring of "Accolades" that makes it difficult to read. There is no reason for the film titles to be at the end, and not the beginning of the table, and it is equally unnecessary for the award itself to be after the association.

There are some good edits, like good-sounding section headings, a good paragraph break, better characteristics for some media, and better-written sentences. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

55eo55, please follow WP:BRD and see above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Response to problematic edits:

• "The lead was convoluted and overlong. Her early life does not need to be in the lead, since it is right underneath and not significant enough to be in her lead." This is a false claim that violates WP:LEAD, which dictates that the lead section should be a summary of the article body. Furthermore, "convoluted and overlong" is incorrect; many Featured Articles have a solid three or four paragraphs of content based on the article body. Please follow WP:LEAD.
• "Splitting the paragraph into smaller ones, which looks better and makes more sense to separate into different years. Also, you do not need to indicate the series or film is US, as she has only appeared in American work and seems unnecessary. Films and TV are described by their genre and the network on all wiki pages" The John paragraph was too short, and you have a sentence that has no citation at the end of it. I'm fine with removing US. However, you restored inconsistent labeling of the works she has been in. What genres were BoJack Horseman and Forever and Artemis Fowl and John? Why do only certain works get their company identified, like HBO? And regarding "Films and TV are described by their genre and the network on all wiki pages", WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no guideline to support doing this. Just because you saw it done somewhere else doesn't mean it's a good practice.
• "If a link is red, that means a wikipedia page does not exist for it. Thus, it should not be linked. Only add the link if a page is created for the play" This is a complete falsehood. Please read WP:REDLINK and follow the guideline.
• "The awards listed after already tell us it is for supporting actress, so this is not necessary here. The previous awards table is cleaner and does not unnecessarily repeat the award shows name twice" This is not good reasoning. Readers read downward. You are assuming a reader will look at the table and then go back up and read the paragraph. Your version also puts the works' names too far to the right. It makes no sense to read the year, then the association without the context of the actual award or work. The fact that the year is in the first column and groups multiple rows together, and that there is similar grouping for film names, shows that these are important columns that should come first on the left side.
• Furthermore, mentioning Duck Butter in the lead section violates WP:UNDUE. This role has not been brought up in sources, which is why it has not been mentioned in running prose. It's simply part of her credits. It's the same reason that out of all the TV credits, we only write about Treme, Big Little Lies, etc.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)