Talk:Character actor/Archives/2021

Major article overhaul and re-write
Per Teahouse concern: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Who_wrote_this? "Who Wrote This?"] I'll bring the same here to this Talk Page. Although there is not enough traffic for an in-depth discussion and back-and-forth conversation regarding all that is wrong with this article; I will leave this here for a period of 60-days in order that whomever wishes to object or interject their own thoughts and concerns toward the overhaul re-write has the opportunity. After the 60-days have transpired, I will place a temporary "Under Construction" template while the article undergoes major restructuring. Please take this opportunity to read the following to better understand how the reconstruction will occur.

"While pondering the term: "Character actor" for an article I am writing on a BLP, I happened upon this article the page: Character actor at WP and was really quite shocked at its rather "personal opinion" style of writing. It seemed more like something I would read in The New Yorker rather than an encyclopedia. Statements such as: "Others, like Sir Laurence Olivier, submerge themselves in any role they play", has nothing to do with the term "character actor" but simply the fact that Olivier was a very good actor; and (Character actors tend to play the same type of role throughout their careers) "Abe Vigoda as an aging criminal", even thought he is best remembered for the lovable detective Sgt. Fish on the TV series Barney Miller and roles such as Grandpa Vincent Ubriacco in Look Who's Talking. These statements, along with: "Some character actors are known as "chameleons" ..." which the source provided doesn't even back the claim: "Someone could be deemed a character actor but still seem the same in every role he or she pursues. Chameleon actor has more of a feel, because when they inhibit a character, they become it, blending in like a chameleon. In turn the viewer loses themselves in the actor’s performance." It's as if the editor simply made things up as they went along. Clearly a "chameleon" actor is not a character actor; they are a separate talent and art. The lede definition: "In a literal sense, all actors can be considered character actors since they all play "characters", but in the usual sense it is an actor who plays a distinctive and important supporting role" once again simply states an interpretation on a quote from an interview by actor John Jarratt: “I don’t know. I played the lead in Wolf Creek 2 recently, so what is a ‘character actor?’ If you’re always getting co-leads and cameos, I think they call those people character actors. But every part plays a character." Certainly not an authority on the craft of acting or the historical definition of the term: "character actor."

Merriam Webster defines "Character Actor" as: "An actor who is known for playing many different and unusual characters" which immediately disqualifies nearly half of the article's claim and content: "Character actors tend to play the same type of role throughout their careers, like Harvey Keitel as tough and determined." The lede definition found online: "An actor who specializes in playing eccentric or unusual people rather than leading roles", which contradicts itself throughout the article: "A character actor can also be the leading man in his films, such as Wallace Beery." Absolutely no source to back this very strong claim. And this: "While a leading actor often has physical beauty needed to play the love interest, a character actor typically does not." According to whom? and this: "A character actor's roles are often substantially different from their real-life persona." Isn't that the very definition of an actor ... period?

I find this article to be one of the worst written at WP. It reads like a school paper; filled with subjective - often contradicting - thought, re-interpreted, inconsistent definitions, made-up content and entirely without substantial sources for an article that should be more definitive in its term and encyclopedic in its examples." Maineartists (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You have some valid points. I have no objection to you fixing the article as you see fit. The term is a bit nebulous and maybe with your improvements, you'll enlighten us all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC) What I'd like to add is that there is confusion in the public mind about what a 'character actor' is, that is, there are different senses of the term. So what I'm saying is that it's not the fault of the Wikipedian contributors if the term has different senses, and may appear contradictory to your eyes. There are plenty of references in the current article; for points that are unreferenced, or if the reference doesn't back up the statement, then they're fine to delete. You might find that contributors have a problem with your revision if you delete references, or remove referenced content. I think it's fine to add more referenced content and explain that yes, indeed, there are varying senses of what the term means.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's the rub. I'm not in agreement. I don't believe there are "different senses" or "varying senses" when it comes to what "character actor" means if one defines it correctly and sources it objectively. I see no evidence that there is "confusion in the public mind about what a 'character actor' is ..."; and to say such, is personal opinion and allows editors to contribute to this article as they see fit. Just because a source in this article uses the phrase "character actor" does not make it a reliable source or authority on the subject. (see above) Yes, I will remove sources and content if does not fit into the true definition of what a "character actor" is - not because some interviewer calls some actor the term; and seek to find exact examples using uncontestable sources to back such claims. There are indeed character actors that fit far better for use in this article than Laurence Olivier or Harvey Keitel. I plan to take a considerable amount of time on this research and leave no stone left unturned to better the content to make a "good article" at WP. Subjectivity and personal opinion will not even enter into it. Maineartists (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When you write "if one defines it correctly and sources it objectively", that sounds like you think that you, yourself, have the correct grasp of the term, and everybody else doesn't. What I recommend is that you write from the sources and not the other way around, which would entail inserting your personal opinion into the text. Do the work. Check how theater critics use the term. Check the dictionaries. I think you'll find, the more you dig into this, that there are different ways of using the term. Nothing is fixed. Language changes. There is no one right way or right definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How on earth does the statement "if one defines it correctly and sources it objectively", make it sound like I think that I, myself, have the correct grasp of the term, and everybody else doesn't? If anything, it removes any personal opinion and singular interpretation. Your recommendation is exactly what I have been saying from day one. I even used the actually definition from dictionaries and included it in the above; despite your directive to "Check the dictionaries". So why should you then go on to say: "There is no right definition" but also advise me to: "Do the work"? Thank you, but I'm all set with my approach and understanding of how WP works objectively and sourced correctly. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, go at it then. Fix it. Enlighten us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)