text:
Michelle Williams (actress)

Michelle Ingrid Williams (born September 9, 1980) is an American actress. Known primarily for starring in small-scale independent films with dark or tragic themes, she has received various accolades, including two Golden Globe Awards and a Primetime Emmy Award, in addition to nominations for five Academy Awards and a Tony Award.

Williams, daughter of politician and trader Larry R. Williams, began her career with television guest appearances and made her film debut in the family film Lassie in 1994. She gained emancipation from her parents at age fifteen, and soon achieved recognition for her leading role as Jen Lindley in the teen drama television series Dawson's Creek (1998–2003). This was followed by low-profile films, before having her breakthrough with the drama film Brokeback Mountain (2005), which earned Williams her first Academy Award nomination.

Williams received critical acclaim for playing emotionally troubled women coping with loss or loneliness in the independent dramas Wendy and Lucy (2008), Blue Valentine (2010), and Manchester by the Sea (2016). She won two Golden Globes for portraying Marilyn Monroe in the drama My Week with Marilyn (2011) and Gwen Verdon in the miniseries Fosse/Verdon (2019), in addition to a Primetime Emmy Award for the latter. Her highest-grossing releases came with the thriller Shutter Island (2010), the fantasy film Oz the Great and Powerful (2013), the musical The Greatest Showman (2017), and the superhero films Venom (2018) and Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021). Williams has also led major studio films, such as Ridley Scott's crime thriller All the Money in the World (2017) and Steven Spielberg's semi-autobiographical drama The Fabelmans (2022).

On Broadway, Williams starred in revivals of the musical Cabaret in 2014 and the drama Blackbird in 2016, for which she received a nomination for the Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play. She is an advocate for equal pay in the workplace. Consistently private about her personal life, Williams has a daughter from her relationship with actor Heath Ledger and was briefly married to musician Phil Elverum. She has two children with her second husband, theater director Thomas Kail.

1980–1995: Early life
Michelle Ingrid Williams was born on September 9, 1980, in Kalispell, Montana, to Carla, a homemaker, and Larry R. Williams, an author and commodities trader. She has Norwegian ancestry and her family has lived in Montana for generations. Her father twice ran unsuccessfully for the United States Senate as a Republican Party nominee. In Kalispell, Williams lived with her three paternal half-siblings and her younger sister, Paige. Although she has described her family as "not terribly closely knit", she shared a close bond with her father, who taught her to fish and shoot, and encouraged her to become a keen reader. Williams has recounted fond memories of growing up in the vast landscape of Montana. When she was nine, the family moved to San Diego, California. She has said of the experience, "It was less happy probably by virtue of it being my preteen years, which are perhaps unpleasant wherever you go." She mostly kept to herself and was self-reliant.

Williams became interested in acting at an early age when she saw a local production of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. She performed in an amateur production of the musical Annie, and her parents would drive her from San Diego to Los Angeles to audition for parts. Her first screen appearance was as Bridget Bowers, a young woman who seduces Mitch Buchannon's son, Hobie, in a 1993 episode of the television series Baywatch. The following year, she made her film debut in the family feature Lassie, about the bond between the titular dog and a young boy (played by Tom Guiry). Williams played the love interest of Guiry's character, which led the critic Steven Gaydos to take notice of her "winning perf". She next took on guest roles in the television sitcoms Step by Step and Home Improvement, and appeared as the child form of Sil, an alien played in adulthood by Natasha Henstridge, in the 1995 science fiction film Species.

By 1995, Williams had completed ninth grade at Santa Fe Christian Schools in San Diego. She disliked going there as she did not get along well with other students. To focus on her acting pursuits, she left the school and enrolled for in-home tutoring. At age fifteen, with her parents' approval, Williams filed for emancipation from them, so she could better pursue her acting career with less interference from child labor work laws. To comply with the emancipation guidelines, she completed her high school education in nine months through correspondence. She later regretted not getting a proper education.

1996–2000: Dawson's Creek and transition to adult roles
Following her emancipation, Williams moved to Los Angeles and lived by herself in Burbank. She said of her initial experience in the city, "There are some really disgusting people in the world, and I met some of them." To support herself, she took assignments in low-budget films and commercials. She had minor roles in the television films My Son is Innocent (1996) and Killing Mr. Griffin (1997), and the drama A Thousand Acres (1997), which starred Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange. Williams later described her early work as "embarrassing", saying she had taken those roles merely to support herself as she "didn't have any taste [or] ideals". In 1997, unhappy with the roles she was being offered, Williams collaborated with two other actors to write a script titled Blink, about prostitutes living in a Nevada brothel, which despite being sold to a production company was never made. Having learned to trade under her father's guidance, a seventeen-year-old Williams entered the Robbins World Cup Championship, a futures trading contest; with a return of 1,000%, she became the first female to win the title and the third-highest winner of all time (her father ranks first).

In 1998, Williams began starring in the teen drama television series Dawson's Creek, created by Kevin Williamson and co-starring James Van Der Beek, Katie Holmes, and Joshua Jackson. The series aired for six seasons from January 1998 to May 2003 and featured her as Jen Lindley, a precocious New York-based teenager who relocates to the fictional town of Capeside. The series was shot in Wilmington, North Carolina, where she lived for the six years of filming. Reviewing the first season for The New York Times, Caryn James called it a soap opera that was "redeemed by intelligence and sharp writing" but found Williams to be "too earnest to suit this otherwise shrewdly tongue-in-cheek cast". Ray Richmond of Variety labeled it "an addictive drama with considerable heart" and considered all four leads appealing. The series was a ratings success and raised Williams's profile. Her first film release since the debut of Dawson's Creek was the Jamie Lee Curtis-starring slasher picture Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)—the seventh installment in the Halloween film series—in which she played one of several teenagers traumatized by the murderer Michael Myers. It grossed $55 million domestically against its $17 million budget.

Williams credited Dawson's Creek as "the best acting class", but also admitted to not having fully invested herself in the show as "my taste was in contradiction to what I was doing every single day." She would film the series for nine months each year and spend the remaining time playing against type in independent features, which she considered a better fit for her personality. She said the financial stability of a steady job empowered her to act in such films. Williams found her first such role in the comedy Dick (1999), a parody of the Watergate scandal, in which she and Kirsten Dunst played teenagers obsessed with Richard Nixon. Praising the film's political satire, Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly credited both actresses for playing their roles with "screwball verve". Dick failed to recoup its $13 million investment. In the same year Williams played a small part in But I'm a Cheerleader, a satirical comedy about conversion therapy.

Keen to play challenging roles in adult-oriented projects, Williams spent the summer of 1999 starring in an off-Broadway play titled Killer Joe. Written by Tracy Letts, it is a black comedy about a dysfunctional family who kills their matriarch for insurance money; she was cast as the family's youngest daughter. The production featured gruesome violence and required Williams to perform a nude scene. Her socially conservative parents were displeased with it, but she said she found it "cathartic and freeing". Her next role was in the HBO television film If These Walls Could Talk 2 (2000), a drama about three lesbian couples in different time periods. Williams signed on to the project after ensuring that a sex scene with co-star Chloë Sevigny was pertinent to the story and not meant to titillate. In a mixed review of the film, Ken Tucker criticized Williams for overplaying her character's eagerness. When asked about playing a series of sexual roles, she stated, "I don't think of any of them as sexy, hot girls. They were just defined at an early age by the fact that others saw them that way." She subsequently made an effort to play roles that were not sexualized.

2001–2005: Independent films and Brokeback Mountain
The British film Me Without You (2001), about an obsessive female friendship, starred Williams and Anna Friel. Williams played Holly, an insecure bibliophile, a part that came close to her personality. The writer-director Sandra Goldbacher was initially reluctant to cast an American in a British part but was impressed by Williams's self-deprecating humor and a "European stillness". Roger Ebert praised Williams's British accent and found her to be "cuddly and smart both at once". Williams returned to the stage the following year in a production of Mike Leigh's farce Smelling a Rat. Her part, that of a scatterbrained teenager exploring her sexuality, led Karl Levett of Backstage to label her "a first-class creative comedienne". She played a supporting role in the Christina Ricci-starring Prozac Nation, a drama about depression based on Elizabeth Wurtzel's memoir.

Dawson's Creek completed its run in 2003, and Williams was satisfied with how it had run its course. She relocated to New York City soon after. She had supporting parts in two art-house films that year, the drama The United States of Leland and the comedy-drama The Station Agent. In the former, starring Ryan Gosling, she played the grieving sister of a murdered boy; it was described by The Globe and Mail's Liam Lacey as "neither an insightful nor well-made film". The Station Agent, about a lonely dwarf (played by Peter Dinklage), featured Williams as a librarian who develops an attraction towards him. Critically acclaimed, the film's cast was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast. On stage, Williams played Varya in a 2004 production of Anton Chekhov's drama The Cherry Orchard, alongside Linda Emond and Jessica Chastain, at the Williamstown Theatre Festival. The theater critic Ben Brantley credited her for "cannily play[ing] her natural vibrancy against the anxiety that has worn the young Varya into a permanent high-strung sullenness."

German filmmaker Wim Wenders wrote the film Land of Plenty (2004), which investigates anxiety and disillusionment in a post-9/11 America, with Williams in mind. Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times praised Wenders's thoughtful examination of the subject and noted Williams's screen appeal. She received an Independent Spirit Award for Best Female Lead nomination for the film. The actor next appeared in Imaginary Heroes, a drama about a family coping with their son's suicide, and played an impressionable young woman fixated on mental health in the period film A Hole in One. Williams returned to the comedy genre with The Baxter, in which she played a geeky secretary. The film received negative reviews; Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe wrote, "Only when Williams is around does the movie seem human, true, and funny. Even in her slapstick, there's pain." As with her other films during this period, it received only a limited release and was not widely seen.

Her film breakthrough came later in 2005 when Williams appeared in Ang Lee's drama Brokeback Mountain, about the romance between two men, Ennis and Jack (played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, respectively). Impressed with her performance in The Station Agent, the casting director Avy Kaufman recommended Williams to Lee. He found a vulnerability in her and cast her as Alma, the wife of Ennis, who discovers her husband's homosexual infidelity. The actor was emotionally affected by the story and, despite her limited screen time, she was drawn to the idea of playing a woman constricted by the social mores of the time. Deeming her the standout among the cast, Ed Gonzalez of Slant Magazine commended Williams for "fascinatingly spiking [Alma's] unspoken resentment for her sham of a marriage with a hint of compassion for Ennis's secret suffering". Brokeback Mountain proved to be her most widely seen film to that point, grossing $178 million against its $14 million budget, and she received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. Williams began dating Ledger while working on the film. The couple cohabited in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, New York, and in 2005, she gave birth to their daughter Matilda.

2006–2010: Work with auteurs
Williams had two film releases in 2006. She first featured opposite Paul Giamatti in the drama The Hawk Is Dying. Five months after giving birth to her daughter, she returned to work on Ethan Hawke's directorial venture The Hottest State, based on his own novel. Leslie Felperin of Variety found her role too brief. Following the awards-season success of Brokeback Mountain, Williams was unsure of what to do next. After six months of indecision, she agreed to a small part in Todd Haynes's I'm Not There (2007), a musical inspired by the life of Bob Dylan. She was then drawn to the part of an enigmatic seductress named S in the 2008 crime thriller Deception. The film, which co-starred Hugh Jackman and Ewan McGregor, was considered by critics to be middling and predictable. In her next release, Incendiary, based on Chris Cleave's novel of the same name, Williams reteamed with McGregor to play a woman whose family is killed in a terrorist attack. A reviewer for The Independent called the film "sloppy" and added that Williams deserved better.

Williams's two other releases of 2008 were better received. The screenwriter Charlie Kaufman was impressed with her comic timing in Dick and thus cast her in his directorial debut Synecdoche, New York, an ensemble experimental drama headlined by Philip Seymour Hoffman. It was a box office bomb and polarized critics, although Roger Ebert named it the best film of the decade. Two days after finishing work on Synecdoche, New York, Williams began filming Kelly Reichardt's Wendy and Lucy, playing the part of a poor and lonesome young woman traveling with her dog and looking for employment. With a shoestring budget of $300,000, the film was shot on location in Portland, Oregon, with a largely volunteer crew. Williams had just separated from Ledger and was relieved for the anonymity the project provided. She was pleased with Reichardt's minimalistic approach and identified with her character's self-sufficiency and fortitude. Sam Adams of the Los Angeles Times considered her performance to be "remarkable not only for its depth but for its stillness" and Mick LaSalle commended her for effectively conveying a "lived-in sense of always having been close to the economic brink".

Williams was filming in Sweden for her next project, Mammoth (2009), when news broke that Ledger had died of an accidental intoxication from prescription drugs. Although Williams continued filming, she later said, "It was horrible. I don't remember most of it." In her first public statement, a week after his death, she expressed her heartbreak and described Ledger's spirit as surviving in their daughter. She attended his memorial and funeral services later that month.

Mammoth was directed by the Swedish director Lukas Moodysson and featured Williams and Gael García Bernal as a couple dealing with issues stemming from globalization. Her role was that of an established surgeon, a part she deemed herself too young to logically play. In the same year, she co-starred with Natalie Portman in a Roman Polanski-directed faux perfume commercial called Greed. For her next project, Martin Scorsese cast her opposite Leonardo DiCaprio in the psychological thriller Shutter Island. Based on Dennis Lehane's novel, it featured her as a depressed housewife who drowns her own children. The high-profile production marked a departure for her, and she found it difficult to adjust to the slower pace of filming. In preparation, she read case studies on infanticide. After finishing work on the film in 2008, Williams admitted that playing a series of troubled women coupled with her own personal difficulties had taken an emotional toll. She took a year off work to focus on her daughter. Shutter Island was released in 2010 and was a commercial success, earning over $294 million worldwide.

Williams had first read the script for Derek Cianfrance's romantic drama Blue Valentine at age 21. When funding came through after years of delay, she was reluctant to accept the offer as filming in California would take her away from her daughter for too long. Keen to have her in the film, Cianfrance decided to shoot it near Brooklyn, where Williams lived. Co-starring Ryan Gosling, Blue Valentine traces the tribulations faced by a disillusioned married couple. Before production began, Cianfrance had Williams and Gosling live together for a month on a stipend that matched their characters' income. This exercise led to conflicts between them, which proved conducive for filming their characters' deteriorating marriage. On set, she and Gosling practiced method acting by improvising several scenes. The film premiered at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival to critical acclaim. The New York Times's reviewer A. O. Scott found Williams to be "heartbreakingly precise in every scene" and commended the duo for being "exemplars of New Method sincerity, able to be fully and achingly present every moment on screen together". She received Academy Award and Golden Globe Award nominations for Best Actress.

In her final film project of 2010, she reunited with Kelly Reichardt for the western Meek's Cutoff. Set in 1845, it is based on an ill-fated historical incident on the Oregon Trail, in which the frontier guide Stephen Meek led a wagon train through a desert. Williams starred as one of the passengers on the wagon, a feisty young mother who is suspicious of Meek. In preparation, she took lessons on firing a gun and learned to knit. Filming in extreme temperatures in the desert proved arduous for her, though she enjoyed the challenge. Writing for The Arizona Republic, Bill Goodykoontz praised the subtlety both in the film and in Williams's performance.

2011–2016: My Week with Marilyn and Broadway
In 2011, Williams portrayed Marilyn Monroe in My Week with Marilyn, a drama depicting the troubled production of the 1957 comedy The Prince and the Showgirl, based on accounts by Colin Clark, who worked on the latter film. Initially skeptical about playing Monroe, as she had little in common with her looks or personality, Williams spent six months researching her by reading biographies, diaries and notes, and studying her posture, gait, and mannerisms. She also gained weight for the part, bleached her hair blonde, and on days of filming, underwent over three hours of makeup. She sang three songs for the film's soundtrack and recreated a performance of Monroe singing and dancing to "Heat Wave". Roger Ebert considered Williams's performance to be the film's prime asset and credited her for successfully evoking multiple aspects of Monroe's personality. Peter Travers opined that despite not physically resembling Monroe, she had "with fierce artistry and feeling [illuminated] Monroe's insights and insecurities about herself at the height of her fame". For her portrayal, she won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress and received a second consecutive Oscar nomination.

In Sarah Polley's romance Take This Waltz (2011), co-starring Seth Rogen and Luke Kirby, Williams played a married writer attracted to her neighbor. Though the actor considered it to be a light-hearted film, Jenny McCartney of The Daily Telegraph found a darker undertone to it and favorably compared its theme to that of Blue Valentine. To play a part that would appeal to her daughter, Williams starred as Glinda in Sam Raimi's fantasy picture Oz the Great and Powerful (2013). Based on the Oz children's books, it served as a prequel to the 1939 classic film The Wizard of Oz. It marked her first appearance in a film involving special effects and she credited Raimi for making her comfortable with the process. The film earned over $490 million worldwide to rank as one of her highest-grossing releases. Suite Française, a period drama that Williams filmed in 2013, was released in a few territories in 2015 but was not theatrically distributed in America. She later admitted to being displeased with how the film turned out, adding that she found it hard to predict the quality of a project during production. Eager to work in a different medium and finding it tough to obtain film roles that enabled her to maintain her parental commitments, Williams spent the next few years working on the stage.

Her desire to star in a musical led Williams to the role of Sally Bowles in a 2014 revival of Cabaret, which was staged at Studio 54 and marked her Broadway debut. Jointly directed by Sam Mendes and Rob Marshall, it tells the story of a free-spirited cabaret performer (Williams) in 1930s Berlin during the rise of the Nazi Party. Before production began, she spent four months privately rehearsing with music and dance coaches. She read the works of Christopher Isherwood, whose novel Goodbye to Berlin inspired the musical, and visited Berlin to research Isherwood's life and inspirations. Her performance received mixed reviews; Jesse Green of Vulture praised her singing and commitment to the role, but Newsday's Linda Winer thought her portrayal lacked depth. The rigorousness of the assignment led Williams to consider Cabaret her toughest project.

Challenged by her work on Cabaret, Williams was eager to continue working on the stage. She found a part in a 2016 revival of the David Harrower play Blackbird. Set entirely in the lunchroom of an office, it focuses on a young woman (Williams), who confronts a much older man (played by Jeff Daniels) for having sexual relations with her when she was twelve years old. Williams, who had not seen previous stagings of the play, was drawn to the ambiguity of her role and found herself unable to detach from it after each performance. Hilton Als of The New Yorker considered her "daring and nonjudgmental embodiment of her not easily assimilable character" to be the production's highlight. She received a Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play nomination for Blackbird.

Williams returned to film in 2016 with supporting roles in two small-scale dramas, Certain Women and Manchester by the Sea. The former marked her third collaboration with Kelly Reichardt and told three interconnected narratives based on the short stories of Maile Meloy. As with their previous collaborations, the film featured minimal dialogue and required Williams to act through silences. Kenneth Lonergan's Manchester by the Sea starred Casey Affleck as Lee, a depressed man who separates from his wife, Randi (Williams), following the tragic death of their children. Williams agreed to the project to work with Lonergan, whom she admired, and despite the film's bleakness she found a connection with her character's desire to reclaim her life in the face of tragedy. In preparation, she visited Manchester to interview local mothers about their lives and worked with a dialect coach to speak in a Massachusetts accent. Several critics hailed Williams's climactic monologue, in which Randi confronts Lee, as the film's highlight; Justin Chang termed it an "astonishing scene that rises from the movie like a small aria of heartbreak." She received her fourth Oscar nomination, her second in the Best Supporting Actress category.

2017–present: Mainstream films, Fosse/Verdon, and marriages
Following a brief appearance in Todd Haynes's drama Wonderstruck (2017), Williams appeared in the musical The Greatest Showman. Inspired by P. T. Barnum's creation of the Barnum & Bailey Circus, the film featured her as Charity, the wife of Barnum (played by Hugh Jackman). She likened her character's joyful disposition to that of Grace Kelly, and she sang two songs for the film's soundtrack. The film emerged as one of her most successful, earning over $434 million worldwide.

Ridley Scott's crime thriller All the Money in the World (2017) was Williams's first leading role in film since 2013. She starred as Gail Harris, whose son, John Paul Getty III, is kidnapped for ransom. She considered it a major opportunity, since she had not headlined a big-budget Hollywood production before. A month prior to the film's release, Kevin Spacey, who originally played J. Paul Getty, was accused of sexual misconduct; he was replaced with Christopher Plummer, and Williams reshot her scenes days before the release deadline. The critic David Edelstein bemoaned that Williams's work had been overshadowed by the controversy and went on to commend her "marvelous performance", noting how she conveyed her character's grief through "the tension in her body and intensity of her voice". She received her fifth Golden Globe nomination for the role. It was later reported that her co-star Mark Wahlberg had been paid $1.5 million to Williams's $1,000 for the reshoots, which sparked a discourse on gender pay gap amongst Hollywood.

In 2018, Williams married the musician Phil Elverum in a secret ceremony in the Adirondack Mountains. Her first film role of the year was as a haughty but insecure executive in the Amy Schumer-starring comedy I Feel Pretty, which satirizes body image issues among women. The comedic role, which required her to speak in a high-pitched voice, led Peter Debruge of Variety to term it "the funniest performance of her career". The film was a modest box office success. In a continued effort to work on different genres, Williams played Anne Weying in the superhero film Venom, co-starring Tom Hardy as the titular antihero. Influenced by the MeToo movement, she provided off-screen inputs regarding her character's wardrobe and dialogue, but the critic Peter Bradshaw found it to be "an outrageously boring and submissive role". Venom earned over $855 million worldwide, making it the highest-grossing film in which Williams has appeared.

Williams returned to the Sundance Film Festival in 2019 with After the Wedding, a remake of Susanne Bier's Danish film of the same name, in which she and Julianne Moore played roles portrayed by men in the original. Benjamin Lee of The Guardian considered the low-key part to be a better fit than her previous few roles. Fosse/Verdon, an FX miniseries about the troubled personal and professional relationship between Bob Fosse and Gwen Verdon, marked her first leading role on television since Dawson's Creek. Williams felt her Broadway run in Cabaret helped prepare her to portray Verdon. She also served as an executive producer on the series, and was pleased not to have to negotiate to receive equal pay to her co-star Sam Rockwell. John Doyle of The Globe and Mail lauded Williams for "play[ing] Verdon with a wonderfully controlled sense of the woman's total commitment to her art and craft while always standing on the edge of an emotional abyss." She won the Primetime Emmy Award and Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Television Miniseries.

Elverum and Williams filed for divorce in April 2019; by November 2019, it was reported that they were no longer married. She later described the marriage as a "mistake". Later in 2019, Williams became engaged to the theater director Thomas Kail, with whom she worked on Fosse/Verdon; they married in March 2020. She gave birth to their son later in 2020 and another child in 2022.

In 2021, Williams reprised the role of Anne Weying in the superhero sequel Venom: Let There Be Carnage. It received mixed reviews, but grossed over $500 million worldwide. In her fourth collaboration with Kelly Reichardt, Williams starred in the drama Showing Up (2022). For her role as a sculptor in it, she shadowed the artist Cynthia Lahti. Tim Robey of The Independent opined that Williams "thrives more intelligently than ever under Reichardt's watch here". Later in 2022, Williams starred in The Fabelmans, Steven Spielberg's semi-autobiographical film about his childhood, in which she played Mitzi Fabelman, a character inspired by his mother. Spielberg had her in mind for the part after seeing her performance in Blue Valentine; in preparation, she heard recordings and watched home movies of his childhood. The film received critical acclaim; Pete Hammond of Deadline Hollywood labeled Williams "gut-wrenchingly great" and Kyle Buchanan of The New York Times wrote that she "really goes for it, attacking this part like someone who knows she’s been handed her signature role". She received further Best Actress nominations at the Golden Globe and Academy Award ceremonies.

After filming The Fabelmans, Williams took a two-and-a-half year break from acting. In 2023, she was enlisted by singer Britney Spears to narrate the audiobook version of her memoir The Woman in Me. A clipping from the audiobook, in which Williams imitates Justin Timberlake speaking in "blaccent" went viral on social media. She will return to acting with Dying for Sex, an FX miniseries based on the podcast of the same name, about a married woman with cancer who begins to explore her sexuality.

Public image and acting style
Describing Williams's off-screen persona, Debbie McQuoid of Stylist magazine wrote in 2016 that she is "predictably petite but her poise and posture make her seem larger than life". The journalist Andrew Anthony has described her as unpretentious, low-key, and unassuming. Charles McGrath of The New York Times considers her to be unlike a movie star and has called her "shy, earnest, thoughtful, and [...] a little wary of publicity". Williams has spoken about how she tries to balance her desire to be private and her wish to use her celebrity to speak out on issues such as sexism, gender pay gap, and sexual harassment. On Equal Pay Day in 2019, she utilized the pay gap controversy surrounding her film All the Money in the World to deliver an address at the United States Capitol urging passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. During her 2020 Golden Globe acceptance speech for Fosse/Verdon, she advocated for the importance of women's and reproductive rights.

In the aftermath of her ex-partner Heath Ledger's death in January 2008, Williams became the subject of intense media scrutiny and was frequently stalked by paparazzi. She disliked the attention, saying it interfered with her work and made her self-conscious. Although reluctant to publicly discuss her romantic relationships, Williams was forthright in expressing her grief over Ledger's death, saying it had left a permanent hole in both her and her daughter's life. She has since affirmed her determination to look after her daughter in spite of her difficulties as a single parent. In 2018, she opened up about her relationship and marriage to Phil Elverum to provide grieving women with inspiration.

Williams prefers acting in small-scale independent films to high-profile, mainstream productions, finding this to be "a very natural expression of [her] interest". Elaine Lipworth of The Daily Telegraph has identified a theme of "dark, often tragic characters" in her career, and Katie O'Malley of Elle writes that she specializes in "playing strong, independent and forthright female characters". Susan Dominus of The New York Times considers her to be a "tragic embodiment of grief, in life and in art". Regarding her selection of roles, Williams has said she is drawn toward "people's failings, blind spots, inconsistencies". She believes that her own unconventional adolescence informs these choices. She agrees to a project on instinct, calling it an "un-thought out process". Describing her acting process in 2008, she stated:"Acting sometimes reminds me of therapy in that the more you talk about a traumatic or profound event, the more it loses its emotional tension. [The trick is] to live in so much mystery, to rely on a feeling, an instinct, on faith, really, that everything I need is already inside me, and best I just don't block the exit."

Erica Wagner of Harper's Bazaar has praised Williams for combining "startlingly emotional performance with a sense of groundedness" and the critic David Thomson opines that she "can play anyone, without undue glamour or starriness". Adam Green of Vogue considers Williams's ability to reveal "the inner lives of her characters in unguarded moments" to be her trademark, and credits her for not "trading on her sex appeal" despite her willingness to perform nude scenes. Her Manchester by the Sea director Kenneth Lonergan has stated that her versatility allows her to be "transformed, in her whole person" by the role she plays. Dominus also believes that she physically transforms herself "as if all her molecules have fallen apart and been reassembled to create a slightly different version of herself, the material attributes the same but the essence transformed". Describing her career in 2016, Boris Kachka of Elle termed it a metamorphosis from "celebrated indie ingenue to muscular, chameleonic movie star". In a 2022 readers' poll by Empire magazine, Williams was voted one of the 50 greatest actors of all time. The magazine attributed her success to playing "damaged, broken and hurt characters with such heartbreaking sensitivity, you can never see the seams".

The saffron Vera Wang gown Williams wore to the 78th Academy Awards in 2006 is regarded as one of the greatest Oscar dresses of all time. Williams has featured as the brand ambassador for the fashion label Band of Outsiders and the luxury brand Louis Vuitton. She has appeared in several advertisement campaigns for the latter company, and in 2015, she starred alongside Alicia Vikander in their short film named The Spirit of Travel.

Acting credits and awards
According to the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes and the box-office site Box Office Mojo, Williams's most critically acclaimed and commercially successful films are The Station Agent (2003), Brokeback Mountain (2005), Wendy and Lucy (2008), Blue Valentine (2010), Shutter Island (2010), Meek's Cutoff (2010), My Week with Marilyn (2011), Oz the Great and Powerful (2013), Manchester by the Sea (2016), Certain Women (2016), The Greatest Showman (2017), Venom (2018), Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021), and The Fabelmans (2022). Among her stage roles, she has appeared on Broadway in revivals of Cabaret in 2014 and Blackbird in 2016.

Williams has received five Academy Award nominations: Best Supporting Actress for Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Manchester by the Sea (2016); and Best Actress for Blue Valentine (2010), My Week with Marilyn (2011), and The Fabelmans (2022). She won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical for My Week with Marilyn (2011) and Best Actress – Miniseries or Television Film for Fosse/Verdon (2019); she has been nominated five more times: Best Actress in a Drama for Blue Valentine (2010), All the Money in the World (2017), and The Fabelmans (2022); and Best Supporting Actress for Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Manchester by the Sea (2016). Williams also won the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series or Movie for Fosse/Verdon (2019) and received a nomination for the Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play for Blackbird.

title: Michelle Williams (actress)


text:
André Brie

André Brie (born 13 March 1950 in Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) is a German politician and from 1999 to 2009 Member of the European Parliament for the Party of Democratic Socialism, part of the European Left and sits on the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs.

He is also a substitute for the Committee on Petitions and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

Outside Parliament he is a member of the PDS regional party council in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

Education

 * 1968: Skilled tool-maker
 * 1976: Degree in political science
 * 1979: Dr.rer.pol.
 * 1985: Dr.sc.pol.

Career

 * 1976-1983: Academic assistant at the Institute for International Relations, Potsdam-Babelsberg (IIB)
 * 1983-1986: senior assistant at the IIB
 * 1986-1989: lecturer and assistant professor at the IIB
 * 1990: Lecturer at the Humboldt University, Berlin
 * 1990-1999: Staff Member of the PDS Executive Committee, and PDS election campaign manager
 * 1990-1992: Deputy chairman of the PDS
 * since 2003: Member of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Land executive of the PDS
 * since 1999: Member of the European Parliament

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: André Brie


text:
Buick Rendezvous

The Buick Rendezvous is a mid-size crossover SUV that was sold by Buick for the 2002–2007 model years. Introduced in the spring of 2001, the Buick Rendezvous and its corporate cousin, the Pontiac Aztek, were GM's first entries into the crossover SUV segment. The Rendezvous featured a four-speed automatic transmission with a V6 engine and optional all-wheel-drive (Versatrak). The SUV used the same platform as GM's short-wheelbase minivans, the Chevrolet Venture and Pontiac Montana. The Rendezvous provided a passenger- and load-carrying capacity not seen in the Buick lineup since the discontinuation of the Buick Roadmaster Estate station wagon in 1996.

Technology and notable features

It was Buick's first truck in its lineup since 1923, and the Rendezvous was billed as a combination of the best attributes of a minivan (large cargo capacity, seating for up to seven), a luxury automobile (ride, handling, smoothness) and a sport utility vehicle (truck styling and available all wheel drive).

The Rendezvous was produced at General Motors' Ramos Arizpe, Mexico assembly plant, where it shared an assembly line with the Pontiac Aztek. Like the Pontiac Aztek, the Buick Rendezvous is based on a shortened version of GM's second generation U platform minivans. In lieu of four-wheel drive, the Rendezvous offered Versatrak, a full-time, fully automatic all-wheel drive system which provided sure-footed traction in inclement weather and could handle moderate off-road surfaces.

Buick benchmarked their Park Avenue sedan as the prototypical target for ride and handling for the Rendezvous. In order to provide a luxurious and responsive car-like ride, all Rendezvous came equipped with a fully independent rear suspension system regardless of optional content or trim level.

The Rendezvous' instrument cluster detailing featured teal illuminated needles and numbers set in a silver face accented by chrome trim rings that was meant to evoke the luxurious look and feel of an expensive watch or designer bracelet. On the uplevel CXL model, a driver information center on the instrument panel provided the outside temperature, compass functions, a trip computer that included readings of fuel economy, range and fuel used. An optional second generation heads-up display was also available. This was also available in the CX model. An optional tire inflation monitoring system provided readings of tire pressure and warned if out of the specified range.

The Rendezvous boasted the ability to carry seven passengers when equipped with a third-row bench, a class-leading feature that Buick brought to market before its competitors, and was able to carry within its interior a standard 4 x 8' sheet of plywood.

In support of the Rendezvous' intended role as a versatile accoutrement for busy people with families, it provided a center console with storage space and power points for a laptop computer as well as a separate spots to hold a purse, a cell phone, pager or other small items that the owner would want to keep organized and readily accessible as well as an optional rear cargo organizer system and rear seat stereo system controls with headsets.

Safety
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) gives Rendezvous an overall Acceptable rating in its frontal offset crash test for fair structure performance and fair dummy control. However, the IIHS did not perform a side-impact test on the Rendezvous.

Sales success
The Rendezvous was a badly needed success for Buick, given the decline of its aging customer base, and singlehandedly brought a large number of younger, wealthier "conquest" buyers into Buick showrooms who otherwise would not have considered purchasing a Buick. A major contributor to the Rendezvous's success was an aggressive value-pricing strategy that made the Rendezvous US$6,500 less than a comparably equipped Acura MDX and US$8,000 less than the Lexus RX. The Rendezvous handily exceeded GM's predictions of 30,000 to 40,000 units a year by a large margin, which helped offset the poor sales of the Pontiac Aztek with which it shared its Ramos Arizpe, Mexico, assembly line.

2003

 * Optional Rear Seat DVD system is now offered
 * Optional XM Satellite Radio is now offered

2004

 * Front turn signal/parking lights changed to clear from the previously used amber.
 * The Ultra was added as a top-line model, with all comfort options standard, 17 inch aluminum wheels, leather and ultrasuede seating as well as a theft deterrent system.
 * OnStar is now available on the Rendezvous as an optional feature.

2005

 * The Ultra was available with front-wheel drive.
 * The 3.6 L V6 was now an option for the front-wheel drive CXL.
 * Received chrome Buick tri-shield steering wheel.
 * Leather-wrapped steering wheel standard.

2006

 * Quiet Tuning added to model
 * OnStar is now standard on the Rendezvous
 * Rear park-assist is also now made standard on the Rendezvous
 * 3.5 liter V6 Standard
 * Received chrome Buick tri-shield in grille
 * A black faced instrument cluster replaced the all silver one used in prior years (2005 in some models)
 * Ultra Dropped for CXL+

2007

 * OnStar Direction and Connections with turn-by-turn navigation
 * Available in CX, and CXL Trims
 * Available only in Front Wheel Drive
 * Standard Mahogany Trimmed Wheel on CXL, Optional on CX
 * Standard Third Row Seat on CXL Trim
 * Last Year for the Buick Rendezvous

title: Buick Rendezvous


title: Category:500s


title: Category:510s


title: Category:520s


title: Category:530s


title: Category:540s


text:
Teething

Teething is the process by which an infant's first teeth (the deciduous teeth, often called "baby teeth" or "milk teeth") appear by emerging through the gums, typically arriving in pairs. The mandibular central incisors are the first primary teeth to erupt, usually between 6 and 10 months of age and usually causes discomfort and pain to the infant. It can take several years for all 20 teeth to complete the tooth eruption. Though the process of teething is sometimes referred to as "cutting teeth", when teeth emerge through the gums they do not cut through the flesh. Instead, hormones are released within the body that cause some cells in the gums to die and separate, allowing the teeth to come through.

Teething may cause a slightly elevated temperature, but not rising into the fever range of greater than 38.0 C. Higher temperatures during teething are due to some form of infection, such as a herpes virus, initial infection of which is extremely widespread among children of teething age.

Signs and symptoms
The level of pain that a baby can handle will be different for each child. Some may appear to suffer more than others while they are teething. The soreness and swelling of the gums before a tooth comes through is the cause of the pain and fussiness a baby experiences during this change. These symptoms usually begin about three to five days before the tooth shows, and they disappear as soon as the tooth breaks the skin. Some babies are not even bothered by teething.

Common symptoms include drooling or dribbling, increased chewing, mood changes, irritability or crankiness, and swollen gums. Crying, sleeplessness, restless sleep at night, and mild fever are also associated with teething. Teething can begin as early as 3 months and continue until a child's third birthday. In rare cases, an area can be filled with fluid appearing over where a tooth is erupting and causing the gums to be even more sensitive. Pain is more often associated with the eruption of molars since they are larger, and do not penetrate through the gums as easily as the other teeth.

Some noticeable symptoms that a baby has entered the teething stage include chewing on their fingers or toys to help relieve pressure on their gums. Babies might also refuse to eat or drink due to the pain. Symptoms will generally fade on their own, but a doctor should be notified if they worsen or are persistent. Teething may cause signs and symptoms in the mouth and gums, but does not cause problems elsewhere in the body.

Pulling on the ears is another sign of pain: the pain in the mouth throbs throughout the baby's head, so they pull their ears believing that it will provide relief. Mild rash can develop around the mouth due to the skin irritation caused by excessive drooling or dribbling.

Sequence of appearance
The infant teeth tend to emerge in pairs – first one lower incisor emerges, then the other lower incisor, after which the next set begin to emerge. The general pattern of emergence is:
 * 1) Lower central incisors (2) at approximately 6 months
 * 2) Upper central incisors (2) at approximately 8 months
 * 3) Upper lateral incisors (2) at approximately 10 months
 * 4) Lower lateral incisors (2) at approximately 10 months
 * 5) First molars (4) at approximately 14 months
 * 6) Canines (4) at approximately 18 months
 * 7) Second molars (4) at approximately 2–3 years

Milk teeth tend to emerge sooner in females than in males. The exact pattern and initial starting times of teething appear to be hereditary. When and how teeth appear in an infant has no bearing on the health of the child.

Misdiagnosis as teething
Teething has not been shown to cause fever or diarrhea; however, the belief that teething causes fever is extremely common among parents. Whilst there is some evidence that teething can cause an elevated temperature, it does not cause fever (medically defined as rectal temperature greater than 100.4 F). One small 1992 study found a significant rise in temperature on the day of eruption of the first tooth. Another study in 2000 found "mild temperature elevation" but not fever over 102 F.

There is a risk that fever around the age of teething is dismissed as due to teething when it is actually due to illness, particularly infection by herpes viruses. "Coincidentally, primary tooth eruption begins at about the time that infants are losing maternal antibody protection against the herpes virus. Also, reports on teething difficulties have recorded symptoms which are remarkably consistent with primary oral herpetic infection, such as fever, irritability, sleeplessness, and difficulty with eating." "Younger infants with higher residual levels of antibodies would experience milder infections, and these would be more likely to go unrecognized or be dismissed as teething difficulty." Herpes virus infection may take the form of primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (HSV-1) or of infection by human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6), which infects 90% of children by age 2. "The symptoms of elevated temperature and facial rash could be explainable by infection with the HHV-6 agent, which is ubiquitous among infants of teething age." Other viruses may also cause fevers which might be misattributed to teething, but the oral involvement that may occur with herpes viruses makes misdiagnosis a particular risk for such infections.

Treatment
Infants may chew on objects to aid in the teething process. Teething necklaces or bracelets are not recommended as they can cause choking, strangulation, or irritation of the mouth. Teething rings and other toys, called teethers, are often designed with textures. Some infants gain relief from chewing on cold objects. Some people freeze small chunks of fresh fruits or vegetables and put them in teething nets.

Medication
In cases where the infant is in obvious pain, some doctors recommend the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or child-safe pain-relief treatments containing benzocaine, lidocaine, or choline salicylate. Benzocaine must be used cautiously because it can cause methemoglobinemia; choline salicylate is related to aspirin and "may cause Reye's syndrome in susceptible children, especially those with or recovering from viral infections, or when used in combination with other NSAIDs". 5% lidocaine gel produces anaesthesia (numbing) within 2–5 minutes, lasting for 10–20 minutes. However, one author concludes that, "Overall, the risks and adverse effects from inappropriate or prolonged use of pharmacological agents outweigh their potential benefits." She points out that "the psychological trauma involved in administering medications or applying topical preparations to infants must be considered", and argues that "the placebo effect must not be overlooked. For example, applying a gel of 20% benzocaine in polyethylene glycol may give only a modest benefit over applying the placebo, which gives an efficacy of 60% compared with 90% for the active preparation."

Medicines are often applied to the babies' gums to relieve swelling and pain. These gels are similar to the toothache gel that is used by adults for sore gums and toothaches, but is administered in much smaller doses. Teething gels work as a numbing agent to dull the nerves in the gums so that the pain is less noticeable. It is important to follow the directions on the package to ensure that the correct amount of medication is administered and that proper techniques are used to reduce the risk for infection. It is important not to let the medicine numb the throat as it may interfere with the normal gag reflex and may make it possible for food to enter the lungs. Similar medicines are also available in powder form, as "teething powder".

Some traditional medicines used to treat teething pain have been found to be harmful due to high lead content, with effects including toxic encephalopathy. Surma or kohl has traditionally been used in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent as a teething powder, as have the Middle Eastern saoott/cebagin. Santrinj – a 98% lead oxide product otherwise used as a paint primer – is also used in the Middle East as a home remedy for teething.

History
Teething used to be considered (wrongly) a cause of death, as many children died in the first years of life, at the same time as teething occurs. "The tendency in the past to attribute serious disease to teething was so prevalent that in 1842 teething was the registered cause of death in 4.8% of all infants who died in London under the age of 1 year and 7.3% of those between the ages of 1 to 3 years according to the Registrar General's report."

Ironically, while teething is a natural process which creates little more than discomfort, some methods for relieving teething pain have caused serious harm and even death. Old remedies for teething include "blistering, bleeding, placing leeches on the gums, and applying cautery to the back of the head". In the sixteenth century the French surgeon Ambroise Paré introduced the lancing of gums using a lancet, in the belief that teeth were failing to emerge from the gums due to lack of a pathway, and that this failure was a cause of death. This belief and practice persisted for centuries, with some exceptions, until towards the end of the nineteenth century lancing became increasingly controversial and was then abandoned, although as late as 1938 an Anglo-American dental textbook advised in favour of lancing, and described the procedure. In the first half of the twentieth century, teething powders in the English-speaking world often contained calomel, a form of mercury. It was removed from most powders in 1954 when it was shown to cause "pink disease" (acrodynia), a form of mercury poisoning.

Teething toys have a long history. In England in the 17th–19th centuries, a coral meant a teething toy made of coral, ivory, or bone, often mounted in silver as the handle of a rattle. A museum curator has suggested that these substances were used as sympathetic magic, and that the animal bone could symbolize animal strength to help the child cope with pain.

title: Teething


title: Category:550s


title: Category:560s


text:
Talk:Michelle Williams (actress)

Requested move 6 December 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's no consensus for move at this time. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Michelle Williams (actress) → Michelle Ingrid Williams –
 * (1) WP:Natural disambiguation. Natural disambiguation is very standard in the real world, Wikipedia’s affection for the parenthetical notwithstanding.
 * (2) To solve the titling problem with the ambiguous Michelle_Williams_on_screen_and_stage.
 * (3) Real world common name for the person. Examples:
 * * https://www.instagram.com/michelleingridwilliams_/?hl=en
 * * https://play.google.com/store/music/artist/Michelle_Ingrid_Williams
 * * https://www.thefamousbirthdays.com/people/michelle-ingrid-williams

SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The other Michelle Williams (singer) is primarily known for her singing and is disambiguated accordingly, so there is no conflict to resolve here. I also don't think these sources are sufficient to establish that use of her middle name is part of a WP:COMMONNAME. Therefore, use of the middle name is not preferred by WP:NATURAL, which states: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.
 * That Instagram page is not her official page, for example, but is the "Italian fanpage for Michelle Williams' fans". Use of the middle name in this case is venturing into the use of an obscure name area. Most people simply don't know her as "Michelle Ingrid Williams". As to the supposed "problem with the ambiguous Michelle_Williams_on_screen_and_stage", there is no problem there, as explained at Talk:Michelle_Williams_on_screen_and_stage.  --В²C ☎ 00:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Her middle name is NOT obscure or made up, and so your quote of NATURAL is off the mark. This proposal is supported by NATURAL. Michelle Ingrid Williams is clearly a COMMONNAME for her, even if the listed sources are not source quality sources.  Michelle Williams is ambiguous, and when you look for this person, “Ingrid” is up there at the top every time.  Sarah Jane Brown is a less clear cut excellent precedent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Declaring her middle name is not obscure without substantiation is not an argument. We have countless actors, actresses, writers, artists, etc. who each have an ambiguous First Last name, and a middle name, but are nevertheless disambiguated by the occupation for which they are best known in parentheses, not by their middle name, precisely because the middle name is considered obscure. You've not indicated why the middle name of this actress is any less obscure. Use of a middle name in the title, unless it is widely known, is not a WP practice. --В²C ☎ 00:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not obscure? It’s what the subject uses for disambiguation in social media, and on things like googleplay. Is in the lede sentence of every biography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose. In the case of actors, their on-screen stage name must be also considered their WP:COMMONNAME, even if they use their full birth name on social media. In the most obvious examples, superstars Madonna Ciccone and Prince Rogers Nelson are listed in the main title headers of their articles as Madonna (entertainer) and Prince (musician) even though their full birth names are well known to the public. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Solution looking for a problem. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This does not work for the recognizability criterion, to the extent that if I saw this title I would probably think it was referring to a different person. Dekimasu よ! 08:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Natural disambiguation is preferred. The most commonly recognizable name ("natural-language word or expression") is "Michelle Williams", not "Michelle Williams (actress)"; the parenthetical term is not part of the name. Therefore there's no argument to be made for the former as a "common name" at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The parenthetic expression in parenthetic disambiguation is never part of the common name; the portion outside of the parentheses is the common name. We generally prefer this to “natural disambiguation” when the “natural disambiguation” is not something the subject is commonly called in reliable English sources. —В²C ☎ 14:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose her WP:COMMONNAME is clearly just Michelle Williams, only obscure references use her middle name. Her occupation is a better disambiguator than a rarely used middle name.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The actress has never been credited as "Michelle Ingrid Williams" and the social media site provided is a fan account. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC on end of marriage
Should the marriage template in the infobox include "|end=div" ? The 2019 Pitchfork source in the main body states, "He’s not married to Williams anymore either; they quietly filed for divorce this April, after less than a year of marriage." Does them filing for divorce and not being married anymore signify they are divorced, or does this just mean the marriage is romantically over and we need to wait until there is a source explicitly stating that the divorce has been finalized? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 * There are more explicit sources, as part of engagement-pregnancy-next marriage.
 * Harper’s Bazaar Michelle Williams and Thomas Kail Are Married 23 March 2020
 * The Cut Michelle Williams Got Married in Secret to Thomas Kail

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I was able to find two more sources (Billboard and Mercury News) that state the two are divorced, so I think it's fine for the template to say that the marriage ended in divorce. Quorum816 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes per sources provided by Markbassett and Quorum816. Ikjbagl (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Combining life and career
Her personal life and her career are two completely separate entities. It makes no sense to combine them. The majority of articles separate them. I see no reason why this one should be different at all. I already went through the effort to effectively separate the two entities with some help User:Abbyjjjj96, but I've been reverted by User:Krimuk2.0 who won't provide me with any actual reason why they should be combine other than that it was a change. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 09:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "majority of articles separate them" is not a Wikipedia policy. We edit based on policy. Unless you can provide us with a policy that states that "life and her career are two completely separate entities" and should be separated, you shouldn't be edit-warring. Check other similar FA's such as Laurence Olivier, Charlie Chaplin, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, and Sonam K Ahuja. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Having a 'Personal life' section makes for easier reading, rather than having to read the whole 'Life and career' section for details (MOS:ACCESS). "Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the names or order of section headings within the body of an article. The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles" (MOS:BODY) – I believe the majority of articles about actors have a personal life section. Per WP:SUMMARY, "each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article", although I guess that depends on if you personally consider her personal life to be a major subtopic (I do). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I outlined numerous policies here. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but these are subjective. MOS:ACCESS and MOS:BODY are not policies, but a stylistic guideline; and as it rightfully says, there is "no general standard or guideline". For the precedent, I have already cited the FAs Laurence Olivier, Charlie Chaplin, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, and Sonam K Ahuja. Are there exact policies that dictate how many sub-sections are necessary in a BLP? No. So, in the absence of that, all choices are correct; as you rightfully said, what one "personally consider"s to be way. So, to argue for change, the only reason that appears in this context is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have cited a number of articles which don't have a personal life section, but I could also cite a number of articles which do (Natalie Portman, Angelina Jolie, Gary Oldman, Diana Rigg, Elizabeth Taylor, Vanessa Redgrave, etc). Just because MOS:ACCESS is a stylistic guideline rather than a policy doesn't mean it should be ignored. As you have yet to cite a policy/guideline which refutes it, you are the one arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly! So both exists and both are correct. When there is no evidence to prove that the current version is wrong, there doesn't exist a valid reason to change. Basic If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you don't have a guideline which refutes MOS:ACCESS and just don't like it. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you don't have a guideline which says the current version violates MOS:ACCESS and just don't like it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:ACCESS is the guideline. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And which part of the guideline (one that starts with Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline in this matter) does this article violate? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read". Having the personal life interfused with her career makes it more difficult to find information. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So a subjective "more difficult to find" is your argument. That's just.... yep, you guessed it.... I don't like it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * First of all, you are just as guilty as editing warring as me, so you're in no position to call me out for edit warring, especially since you're first edit summary was just "restoring" which is an edit summary that should only be used when undoing vandalism. Second of all, you still aren't providing any actual reason to include them in one section. If I'm only here to find out about her personal life, why should I have to go through all of these paragraphs of her career information just to find out about it? Sperating them allows readers to find just the information they're here to learn. Most readers aren't coming here to read the entire article, and the ones that are will not be inconvenienced in anyway by splitting the two sections. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 13:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, restoring to the WP:STATUSQUO on what was decided to be the best-article quality by an extensive FAC is exactly what our policy dictates. The onus is on you to gain community consensus for your mass-scale changes, per WP:BRD. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should actually read WP:BRD before citing it so much. "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed". JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 13:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should actually read WP:STATUSQUO: " Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo". Plus, maybe you should cite a single policy that support your changes that's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It's ironic that you're accusing us of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when that's what you're doing. We explained how it's more accessible and completely lines with policy to split them. Your entire argument is just that we're changing the article, which is not a valid argument. BRD and Status Quo mean that we use the original version while a debate is ongoing. They do not mean we cannot change the article and are not valid reasons to not change articles. 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDDJS (talk • contribs)
 * "completely lines with policy to split them" == nope. You have failed to provide a single policy that says the current version is wrong and should be changed. Also, not how WP:CONSENSUS works. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said the current version is "wrong". But the new version better aligns with several policies that we already mentioned, including WP:SUMMARY. Not only is "if ain't broke don't fix it" not a policy on Wikipedia, but it goes against the fundamental idea of Wikipedia to constantly improve. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 16:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "several policies that we already mentioned" == again, that did not happen. Guidelines that start with no general standard or guideline is not a policy. "it goes against the fundamental idea of Wikipedia" == if that was the case, the page would have been long deleted. Also, you think your version is an improvement. I don't. WP:CONSENSUS highlights what needs to be done in such cases. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This article used to have separate sections for her early life, career and personal life. Earlier in this discussion, you called separating the current 'Life and career' section into three sections "mass-scale changes" which require consensus per WP:BRD. And yet, you are the one who made "mass-scale changes" when you combined the sections in the first place. There isn't a discussion about it on the talk page, so what consensus did you have? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to read up on what WP:CONSENSUS actually is (when I made that edit in 2018 when the article was barely at 20% of what it is now, did anyone revert me; so how does WP:BRD apply there?) and you need to familiarise yourself with the WP:FAC process. Qualified editors passed it as an WP:FA, which is "considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer", here -- that's the consensus I had. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging, , , , who have actually written FA-quality articles on actors/actresses for their input. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Sometimes the sequence of events makes it difficult, even impossible, to maintain a single coherent chronological narrative, in which case a "personal life" section is needed, but where one can outline someone's life and career from cradle to grave (or to the present in this case) in a single span it is better to do so. If you buy a biography from a bookshop you would expect that. I have never heard of this actress and can't usefully comment in detail, but I do think it arrogant to barge in and try to rewrite a Featured Article without consultation.   Tim riley  talk   17:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start an RFC about this to get more editors involved. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 17:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're going to start an RfC because you don't like the answer you're being given.  Cassianto Talk  00:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Krimuk2.0's only explanation for not reverting the edit was that it was different and didn't have consensus. He made no explanation to what was actually "wrong" with my version. So, I decided to see if I could get an actual consensus with an RFC. I don't see at all how that's a problem. I posted the RFC completely neutrally. If the RFC results in consensus against separating them, I'll accept it no problem. But the argument was going nowhere with Krimuk2.0's sole explanation that it was a change to the article absolutely not being a satisfying enough reason for me to let this go, but there also weren't enough users participating to get a consensus one way or the other. RFC was the next logical step, and suggesting that it was wrong to get more users participating in a discussion is honestly pretty weird. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 00:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have to afford some respect to the principle writer . I couldn't give a flying toss what WP:OWN says - that was written by a group of people who've probably never written a decent article in their lives, so they will not understand stewardship or why someone, who has spent a vast amount of their time and money writing something for the benefit of others, gets all protective over it.  Now, because you don't agree with the principle author, you're inviting a bunch of strangers along (who've probebly never heard of Michelle Williams) to try to override the wishes of the author. Not good.   Cassianto Talk  06:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you don't give a flying toss about the policies of editing here? Not good. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC
Should we leave her life and career combined in one section or should we separate them like in this revision? Please note the above conversation when contributing. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 17:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Separate As explained above, keeping the sections separate makes the article more accessible because it makes easier for readers who are only interested in reading just about her personal life find the information that they want. Most readers aren't interested in reading the full article, but rather just specific information and separating the sections makes it easier to do that while doing nothing to disservice readers interested in reading the entire article. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 17:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Most readers aren't interested in reading the full article..."? Have you asked them? I think perhaps you mean you are not interested. The article as agreed at FAC seems admirable to me. I wouldn't "seperate" or even "separate".  Tim riley  talk   17:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is supposed to lay out the career of a four-time Academy Award nominated, Emmy-winning, SAG-winning, and two-time Golden Globe-winning actress. If people are only coming here for grief porn—they’re a decade too late. For her unorthodox romantic life? They have the wrong article. They should try People or Vanity Fair (which actually did an article about it with her). Why should we degrade a featured article because of the alleged laziness of a reader? Would you do it to Taylor Swift’s Featured Article? Who’s had an exponentially more storied personal life? Are people that superficial? If that’s all they care about, there’s always The Daily Mail. Some people actually expect a modicum of editorial quality from this website. Trillfendi (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Combine, per the FA version. As Tim Riley noted above, her life and career have been written in a "single coherent chronological narrative". Her career began at a young age, and her early life information overlaps with that part. Also, her relationship with Heath Ledger, trauma over his death, and parental commitments are directly tied with her acting work. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Separate for accessibility. You shouldn't have to sift through the mammoth 'Life and career' section to glean details of her personal life. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Before substantially changing an FA you need to contact the FAC reviewers to see if they agree that your changes do or do not affect their support for FA status. I assume you have done so, or will be doing so?  Tim riley  talk   17:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Tim riley While I welcome them to contribute to this discussion, I am unaware of any policy or guideline that says that FAC reviewers have to approve of any changes done to a featured article. I was under the impression that FA are under the same editing rules as any other article. If I'm mistaken (which is absolutely possible), please show me the policy or guideline I'm missing. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the general practice, and common sense as well as common courtesy: if you change what they've approved they may no longer think it worthy of FA. If you are worried that they will laugh at you, I'm sure they won't, and will give a considered view, but you really must invite them.  Tim riley  talk   19:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the relevant policy. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:695E:3E11:753C:31B9 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Tim riley I don't know if it was intentional or not, but where you imply that I might be afraid of pinging because they'll laugh at me, came off offensive to me. Again, I don't know whether or not you meant it that, but that's the way it came off to me. I'm all for them contributing to this discussion, and you are free to message them about this discussion, but suggesting that I must personally ask them before editing the page, or that their opinion is worth more than anyone else's implies they have some sort of ownership of the article. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 22:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , and there it is, the inevitable OWNership slur. The same could be said for you for wanting to separate the sections, has that occurred to you?  Cassianto Talk  00:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You're being absolutely ridiculous here. Suggesting that I'm claiming ownership to article because I want to change is absurd. However, the idea that I need to clear an edit with any specific users before making it is literally one of the examples on the page. "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval." "Please clear this with WikiProject Z first." "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." This is "no I'm not, you are" type of response is honestly quite childish. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 00:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm only accusing you of what you seem to be accusing others of. If it's ownership not wanting something changed, then equally it's ownership trying to get something changed. Quit with the cloak and dagger personal attacks and stick to your reasons for wanting this change to occur. And please don't bludgeon people with whom you disagree by challenging their views.  This is an RfC and people are entitled to comment - hence the name of the ruddy thing. You may not like some of the answers given, but that's tough.    Cassianto Talk  06:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was ownership to not want it to change. I said it was ownership to say that I need to get the opinion of a specific group of people before editing the article because that's literally what WP:OWN says. And your comment "Quit with the cloak and dagger personal attacks and stick to your reasons for wanting this change to occur." is really ironic coming from you considering that all you have been doing here is cloak and dagger personal attacks against me; you haven't even commented on the actual issue at hand yet. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the only one making personal attacks, by calling people "ridiculous" and "childish" is you, JDDJS. You should pay heed to your own advice and stop doing that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that I'm making an ownership claim because I started an RFC about changing the article is objectively ridiculous. Calling it out as such is not a personal attack. And I'm not the one openly saying that I don't give "a flying toss" about a policy because it "was written by a group of people who've probably never written a decent article in their lives". JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , well I don't. And they probebly haven't.  Two truths I'd suggest you try and get used to.   Cassianto Talk  20:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you've now set the tone for this RfC, so congrats. You simply cannot start accusing the primary author of ownership and then whinge and whine when they go on the defence. Is this your normal behaviour?   Cassianto Talk  20:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what happened though. I didn't accuse the primary author of ownership though. When User:Tim riley (who by his own claim has never even heard of Williams before commenting here) said that we have to go by what the FA reviewers say, I asked him if that was based on a policy. He admitted that it was not but insisted that it must be done that way anyway. I then said that sounds like ownership, which I stand by. He did not respond to that comment, but that's when you joined the conversation joined in the conversation, not to contribute to the content discussion, but to attack me. You haven't made single comment at all about the content of the article or made a comment to anyone else in this conversation. Instead, you've just been complaining that I'm not doing the exact opposite of a policy here. Is this your normal behaviour? JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 20:43, 11 September 2020 (

 * You seem to me to misunderstand WP:OWN. I have not suggested that the FAC reviewers have any locus as regards the content of this article, but they self-evidently do have as to its continued status as an FA if it is drastically changed from the version they collectively approved. I have been consulted in such a context from time to time over changes to FAs of which I have been an FAC reviewer, most recently, if memory serves, by . I can't understand why you are so reluctant to ask them for their views, which is the proper and honourable thing to do.  Tim riley  talk   07:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the above was a little WP:TLDR. Tim, could you let me know if I really should read it all. I gather that WP:FAOWN is the relevant policy. (Note that it is not a guideline.) My personal spin on it can, as Tim suggests, be seen in this discussion. Myself (as the FAC nominee and article "steward") and the intervening editor rapidly agreed that a specific change would improve the article, but I held off making it until those who had contributed to the original consensus that the article should become an FC had had a chance to contribute; and PH&D held off edit warring until this had played out. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Combine For the readers of popular articles (e.g. Katy Perry, Madonna, etc.) it can become annoying visually because they accept the de facto standard of the common personal life section, but truth be told, why devote a section of this article to what ends up being 5 sentences? Trillfendi (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Separate - guidelines for the layout of an article are just that, guidelines, and as accurately noted above - both exist and both are correct. So for me, as a reader and editor, my personal preference aligns with the argument that separation is easier to navigate and read, accessibility. And per the advice at the top of the talk page, if you can update or improve it, please do so. In my opinion, separation is an improvement. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Combine, per Tim riley above. The style of separating a "personal life" section in many modern performers' articles is lazy and not helpful to an understanding of the person.  It is better to put all the events of a life in chronological order with the person's career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Combine I have been following the discussion and was waiting to see a convincing reason to separate the sections, but have not. This seems to be little more than "I don't like it" and "Because other articles do it" – "Life and career" is a standard way of formatting biographies on WP (it is used on more or less every composer article for example), I have used it time and time again myself. The main argument seems to be for "readability", but as others have noted, for this article in particular it is easier to read if the sections are together since the her career aligns so much with her life. Taking them out would cause an unnecessary lack in fluidity. Aza24 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Separate. There's every reason to have the details of her personal life listed separately, for anyone interested in that (note I said "interested in that", not "only interested in that"), and since her personal life was not part of her career, it should be a separate section. The article is already massive at 122,310 bytes and dense text, so anything that can help the reader such as sectioning personal-life details is to be desired. This improves navigation, readability, and accessibility. These sorts of things are generally why we have specific sections for filmography (separated into film and stage), personal life, early life and education (or early life and early career), awards, etc. To me that's the difference between an encyclopedia and a book.To me, the goal of an encyclopedia is to deliver pertinent information in an organized, easily accessible way. The goal of a book is to tell an eloquent, interesting, very lengthy story, that holds the reader's interest longterm (over days or weeks), and which is generally strictly chronological and uninterrupted. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Combine per Tim riley. ~ HAL  333  16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Combine: I'm, surprisingly, in much disagreement with much of the views I see above on both sides of the issue. I don't agree that most readers will/should want to read the article in full, and I don't like the elitism I'm seeing from the FA cohort, but I do not agree that separating a "Personal life" section makes the article more readable, meaningful or consistent with other articles. If readers want to read about Williams' personal life then instead they'll find a "Media image and acting style" section which explains Williams' reticence to be objectified and stereotyped based on her relationships and family life. We are not a gossip rag or a gaggle of pervert paparazzi and Williams' personal life is not itself a significant aspect of the notable topic "Michelle Williams (actress)", except where it is widely identified as relevant by the highest-quality reliable sources and where she chooses to discuss such details widely. There are plenty of facts that this article excludes that could be well-sourced, but we must omit the least important ones so that the article is short enough to read. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Awards in the header
Currently the summary sentence on awards in the header lists a rather arbitrary selection of the top awards. Why are Oscar nominations named but BAFTA Awards are missing? To be less random here I find it a good idea to name the top awards as specified in the page List of awards and nominations received by Michelle Williams (actress) --Yqzuvwj (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's simple. That is her awards page. This is not her awards page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't justify a just random selection of her awards on the actress page. The header should list the most important info about her. So I opt for listing all top awards. And to avoid arbitrariness, I like to follow the selection of what a top award is as done on the awards page. Yqzuvwj (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes the "selection of what a top award is as done on the awards page" not a "random selection" and not "arbitrary"? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, looking into many other awards pages of other actors shows me, that there seems to be a consensus among the wikipedia-community on what is "major" and what is not. The selection of what a top-award is, is always the same. So I find it a good idea to be consistent and follow that selection on other pages too. Yqzuvwj (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to where this consensus took place on what the "major" awards are. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No link. Just an observation you can make when reading and comparing many different awards pages on WP. - Do you have any specific objection to include the "Screen Actors Guild Award" and "BAFTA Award nomination" in the header? If so, please specify. Yqzuvwj (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea is to not make her bio into her awards page. There is a reason these are two separate pages. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. But then it would be better to list in the header only wins, not a really random selection of nominations. Yqzuvwj (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oscar and Tony aren't random. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But to exclude BAFTA is! Yqzuvwj (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I added BAFTA both in the lead and in the main. Was there in the past (2022) and was deleted be Krimuk2.0 without giving reason or reaching consensus on talk page. 131.228.32.166 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCKPUPPETRY will only lead to blocks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Krimuk2.0, unfortunately the discussion above wasn't coming to a conclusion. That's why I'm stepping now one step back:
 * 1) The Michelle Williams article is good. For a reason it's a featured article and your contributions to it are in general very valuable.
 * 2) Even a good article can always be improved.
 * 3) The section on awards links to a Spinoff-Page.
 * 4) According to WP:SPINOFF that section in the main article should be a "summary section (...) to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s)."
 * 5) The subarticle differentiates between "major" and "other" awards.
 * 6) So the summary section in the main article should reflect exactly that and list the major awards as specified in the subarticle.
 * 7) The BAFTA-nominations were specified in the lead of the main article until you deleted that reference on 17 June 2022, 07:32, without giving any reason for doing so or reaching consensus on the talk page.
 * 8) I hope you now find this convincing and we can now settle this dispute.
 * P.S.: My IP-address starts with 91.7. Please WP:AGF. Untrue accusations do not help. Yqzuvwj (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not add the names of all the other 30+ organisations from which she has received awards in the opening para? Actually, why split up the awards page in the first place? Add it back to this article, so everything can be mentioned in ONE page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why have a separate filmography page? Add all her credits to this ONE page?
 * Why mention only some of her films in the lead? Add ALL of them. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And if you are looking for history, the FA-passed version of this article is this, when BAFTA was not mentioned in the opening para. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please remain objective and respond to my arguments instead of lapsing into irony and sarcasm: WP:EQ, WP:Sarcasm_is_really_helpful.
 * I have already given the reasons for the right choice for the selection: 4), 5) and 6) - see above. Yqzuvwj (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe your own work convinces you more than all this discussion: I had a look on your list of your "featured articles". You include BAFTA in the lead of the articles of Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams, Kate Winslet. So I'm really puzzled why you don't want to be consistent here. Yqzuvwj (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to skip Brie Larson and Jessica Chastain in my "own work". And also skip the fact that Zeta-Jones, Lawrence, and Winslet have all won BAFTAs, while Williams has not, and that Adams' 7 BAFTA noms is a second-highest record at the ceremony. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Williams hasn't won Oscar & Tony neither. So why name the nominations in the lead? - Could that be a conclusion of this discussion, you can agree to?: Shorten the sentence in the beginning to: "(...), she has received various accolades, including two Golden Globe Awards and a Primetime Emmy Award." Yqzuvwj (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, Oscars and Tony are THE top-most awards for film and stage, respectively. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that's a very us-american-centric view of the world. Nobody in the West End cares about the Tonys, all that matters are the Olivier Awards. And the Oscars are also on a clear downward trend. - But it's not our job to decide here. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral reflection of the reality out there. So my suggestion is either to skip all nominations or to name those which are considered - not by you or me, but by the world - to be "major". Yqzuvwj (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Michelle Williams is an American actress who works in American film, television, and stage so the article will be American-centric and not British-centric or australian-centric. Anyway, wait for others to chime in, so that WP:CONSENSUS can be gained. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So the argument is much better and I can accept it.
 * Can we two agree on leaving the paragraph as it is for now, but when Michelle Williams finally wins BAFTA we will add that BAFTA-award here on her main WP-article? Yqzuvwj (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, when that happens, we will. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Yqzuvwj (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Michelle Williams (actress)


title: Category:570s


title: Category:580s


title: Category:590s


text:
Talk:Monoamine oxidase

Caspi study
I believe the Caspi study has been hyper-represented in this article, and that the importance of MAO in the degradation of neurotransmitters has not been written up. Can we restore the balance somehow (which will include reducing the long write-up on one study)? JFW | T@lk  17:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, JFW. I've submitted the page for attention. Axl 18:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is also no mention of MAO-B, which does the same for Dopamine and a whole range of "lesser" monoamines. The selective, irreversible MAO-B inhibitor Selegelin is considered an anti-Parkinson drug, and works primarily by decreasing reuptake and decomposition of dopamine, and secondarily by having levo-methamphetamine as the metabolite. It would probably be a very interesting candidate for use in depressive disorders, either as monotherapy, or as an augmentor to e.g. Moclobemid. The now-illegal Amineptin showed great promise as a fast-acting, effective antidepressant due to its action on the dopamine system. It was eventually outlawed for these exact same properties, that in a healthy person can produce euphoria. - Unregistered.

 * Someone has now added information about MAO-B. You make some interesting comments about the MAO inhibitors, but they would be better placed in the article monoamine oxidase inhibitor. Axl 19:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FAD cofactor
"Monoamine oxidase contains the covalently-bound cofactor FAD."

Perhaps a minor issue, but correct me if im wrong, but in Med School, we were taught that FAD (as an organic substance) is a co-enzyme as it is a substrate involved within the reaction. Am I mistaken?--220.237.56.163 11:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitochondrial MAO
Are both forms of MAO found only on the surfaces of mitochondria? A book I was reading mentioned MAO being found there but didn't differentiate between A and B forms (the book was printed in 1984). If mitochondria have their own genetic material, does this mean that the genes for one or both MAOs are stored in the mitochondria and not in the nucleus of the cell?--Eloil 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Just read in the article that both forms are coded for on the x chromosome. --Eloil 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

MOA disorders
i can't believ that criminality is in the list of disorders which affect those with irregular MOAs. i mean come on! show me at least one paper that says this. what about the link to norrie disease? and the cases of those with a complete absence of MOA due to a deleation of Xp21-p11. a list of somatic growth failure; abnormal sexual maturation; autonmic nervous system dysfunction and others would be better suitable than vague thing such as social phobias... when i find a reference to use i will edit. anyone not agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dylan2106 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

MAO
when you type mao, you don't get this. fix it please

add info about tyramine.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.246.76 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 May 2007

Right now mao redirects to Mao Zedong, which is a better place to link to. I don't know anything about how Tyramine relates to MAO. If you do, perhaps you should add that information yourself. Foobaz·o< 04:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PNG Image
No offense intended to whoever created it, but how does the png image representing MAO actually represent it? There are no labels and no reference to it in the article; it makes a lovely abstract picture, but not really an enzyme. Haylo17 07:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I found a huge error
It might not be considered huge to everyone, but it is important. I guess this is what happens when people misinterpret studies from 1987 :P Flying Hamster 11:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Treatment
Does anyone know if there's any treatment for monoamine oxidase A deficiency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedperson (talk • contribs) 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to know if there is a treatment for MAO-A deficiency. I know scientists have tested it on rats so it must be possible to obtain the enzyme as a powder or in a bottle or something. Does anyone know of a source available to the public? Thanks, David, blucat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.142.19.107 (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Neophilia
What does the related link neophile have to do with anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.10.163 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Neophilia is novelty seeking and the genetics section mentions that there is a possible link between MOA-A and novelty seeking. Since novelty seeking is already linked in the text, I have removed the "see also" link. Boghog (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Images
Looks like the image on this page (as well as several similar images) have been tampered with. There does appear to be a molecule somewhere behind the grafitti though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.29.1.21 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monoamine oxidase. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020301014836/http://alpha2.bmc.uu.se/gerard/research_mao.html to http://alpha2.bmc.uu.se/gerard/research_mao.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence
The second paragraph under clinical significance, the sentence (starting with “some research suggests...”) is incomplete. I don’t know the author’s intent when they wrote this, nor am I knowledgeable enough about this topic to correct myself. Can someone address this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.187.52 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

LOL: I Was Going To Ask The Same!
"Some research suggests that certain phenotypes of depression, such as those with anxiety, and "atypical" symptoms involving psychomotor retardation, weight gain and interpersonal sensitivity. However the findings related to this have not been consistent." 70.102.74.164 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC) User_Talk:MichaelCrawford

title: Talk:Monoamine oxidase