Talk:Jess Bush

She is clearly an actress and not an actor

There are tons of articles on Wikipedia that mention the profession of female actors as actress (like Nicole Kidman etc.), why should this one be any different. By deleting female words you are basicly cancelling women. I propose to call Jess an actress and not an actor until she indicates she is against it. MakeItSo84 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There are two factors of concern here, which I'll explain in more detail than in my edit summary. Firstly, our Manual of Style says to use gender-neutral language if we can, and since "actor" is a gender-neutral term but "actress" is gendered, we should default to the former. Secondly, the majority of our cited sources use that same gender-neutral terminology ("actor") for Bush, and that same manual of style instructs us to use the same descriptive words as the reliable sources. As for your arguments, (a) other articles' sources may predominantly use gendered language and thus be in MOS compliance by using the same, and (b) I cannot fathom what you mean by basicly [sic] cancelling women. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

While there's no confirmation on specifics as far as I can tell, I did notice earlier that Bush's Instagram profile is now listing they/she pronouns, so now I'm wondering if perhaps the use of gender-neutral terminology in reliable sources about Bush is by their request and possibly gender identity related? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Could be, could be; good find! If so, then sticking with gender-neutral language is further preferred in the face of MOS:GENDERID. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, in the absence of a confirmation either way, I think sticking with gender neutral terms as much as possible seems ideal in the circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

No. It is not the S.O.P. of wikipedia, or any "politically correct" platform, it's "Actor" who ever you are. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not "actor whoever you are". It should be according to the person's whishes. Since she is using the they pronoun which I wasn't aware of (good observation), I can concur with the article as it is currently written. *and yes I meant basically instead of basicly. But it is important to respect women who are happy with who they are. Calling them actors for no reason could be offending to them. MakeItSo84 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@MakeItSo84: Really? Of course it depends on the person, but If not then anywhere its "non gender" - FlightTime (open channel) 02:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Why should we default to the wishes of a very small minority. I do respect them but if the majority wishes to be called according to their gender why deny it from them? And if someone from the minority indicates that we should use gender neutral language of course we will also. MakeItSo84 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned about "the wishes" of anyone, we, only accept reliable sources. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with that. But you can't expect everyone to declare there preferred gender indication. Since most people are not thinking about those things. Not because they are bad people, just because it doesn't concern them and they have other things on their minds. MakeItSo84 (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

*their MakeItSo84 (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

So, you think we should select their position for them ? - FlightTime (open channel) 02:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes the vast majority won't be offended as opposed to the other way around. MakeItSo84 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

In reply to fourthords (I don't know how to tag usernames yet), why is actress gendered and actor not. It feels like the female part of the dictionary is succumbing to this (why not cancel the male part). Until this decade everyone knew that an actor was a male. Now females are ripped of their part of the dictionary and should forcefully share the same words with males. So much for women's emancipation. I know it isn't a popular opinion here but I feel like all voices should be heard in order to reach a balanced medium. MakeItSo84 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

why is actress gendered and actor not Based on the sourced content at our article on the subject, it looks like the gendered version was adopted from the French actrice circa the mid-17th century, and began falling out of favor in the mid-20th. As for its deprecation on the English Wikipedia, that's a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style; for its non-use on this article, we're following consensus of the MOS and the cited sources. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

For my opinion, it's just a case of misgendering. IKhitron (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"Actor" is a gender-agnostic title, and cannot be misgendering. If you're suggesting that "actress" would be misgendering, the article doesn't support that, though. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the usage of the word actor, when the word actress exists in the language, doesn't matter if actor can be used for any gender or not. Again, it's just my personal opinion. IKhitron (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no denigration of your preferences intended! We just have to (a) follow the manual of style on using "gender-neutral language […] if this can be done with clarity and precision", and (b) represent the cited sources—which predominantly use the gender-neutral "actor". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Why no accurate date of birth?

There are several sources which give her actual date of birth as March 26 1992, including the IMDB page which is already linked at the bottom of the article. So why is her birth year still given as an estimation? 172.194.139.252 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So I've just checked references 2-10 of the current version of the article, and none of those contain Bush's birth date. Unfortuantely I don't have access to citation 1, which is a physical newspaper. If you know of a secondary reliable source that contains Bush's birth date could you please link it? Note IMDB is not a reliable source as it consists of user generated content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I added that source, and it definitely doesn't contain her specific DOB, only saying that she was 19 at the time of publishing. (Also, thanks for your help, here!) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

hesitation

The article currently says, In speaking with The Daily Beast in mid-2023 about Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' LGBTQ+ representation—and her portrayal of a bisexual character—Bush unhesitatingly told the interviewer, 'I'm queer'. That's a paraphrasing of the original source which says, in part, 'I'm queer,' says actor Jess Bush, without hesitation, speaking about both her own life away from the TV screen and on the Paramount+ streaming series.

Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs) removed the word unhestiatingly, suggesting that this unembellished description of Bush's reaction is somehow editorializing. When the cited source was pointed to, instead of beginning this discussion IAW WP:BRD, they chose to revert again and instead pivoted to saying Then make the whole sentence a direct quote from the article in contravention of MOS:QUOTE which says, "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, and so most of the content should be in the editor's own words."

I've replaced the original prose per the above, and have begun this discussion on Therequiembellishere's behalf. If anybody else has any input on their edits, I sure wouldn't turn away any help in understanding them. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to use an editorialized word like "unhesitatingly" because it's a pull quote from the article, then use it as a pull quote. It's not an appropriate encyclopedic writing voice the article prose's tone should take by itself, which you seem to have some sense of in referencing QUOTE. Some random sentence as a quote is not in contravention of QUOTE, btw, I don't see how it could be construed as "excessive" and there's no world a person of reasonable judgement would call it copyright infringement--they'd be histrionic to do so. It's really functionally useless to distinguish to the reader that Bush is "unhesitatingly queer" (obviously) than just saying she said she was queer in the article, and really surprised it seems to be a hill you're willing to fight on to keep in the first place. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(a) There isn't any inherent editorializing in the word. It simply means immediately or without hesitation, here describing the swiftness with which Bush answered an interviewer's question/prompt. (b) It isn't a pull or direct quote. (c) I was (ironically?) quoting MOS:QUOTE for its instruction to keep most prose in the editor's voice. (d) The article doesn't say Bush is unhesitatingly queer, but that she replied without hesitation to say she's queer. (e) The source mentioned Bush's seeming eagerness, which may suggest context about how she perceives the importance of conveying that information. We cannot intuit that, but including the source's specific observation allows readers to make their own conclusion thereabout. (f) Your inference of conflict isn't something I'm trying to imply, though I certainly apologize if you feel attacked by being very surprised. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a lot of words about a useless descriptor. She's queer. We get it, we don't need to belabor with journalistic color because this is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a puff piece profile. I'll leave it at that if you want to cling to it to make sure the article is in your voice. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a lot of words about a useless descriptor. I know it was a lot to read, but in my above reply, point (e) explains how it isn't useless. Your multiple accusations notwithstanding, it's objectively-stated context given by a source that may benefit, and does not hinder, our readers. All that being said: I genuinely appreciate your gracious allowance to continue summarizing sources in prose to inform readers, and thank you for not banning me outright for this discussion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your "explanation" is not convincing, nor do I find their "eagerness" to be something that benefits or informs a reader. They can read the interview or a tumblr gossip blog if they'd prefer it. Also calling a Daily Beast interview "objectively-stated" is... I'll say it's misplaced. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

nor do I find their "eagerness" to be something that benefits or informs a reader It benefits me as a reader, and may benefit others, which is a positive. If it doesn't provide you any benefit, that's a neutral outcome, with no negative downsides. Also calling a Daily Beast interview 'objectively-stated' I didn't discuss the interview as a whole, I was referring to the source's specific mention of Bush's response as being unembellished and objective. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)