Talk:Method acting

message: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Not everything is relevant to the article. There was one instance where the article talks about a meeting between Stanislavski (one of the founders of method acting) and Adler. Although it is useful background information, I did not find it to be relevant. The information could have been more concise. 
As well, I was distracted by a sentence talking about a feud between Brando and Strasberg. 
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
The most recent information is from 2013. I think the article goes too much into the history and should focus on the different schools of it. 
What else could be improved?
Not much else. 
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article heavily favours the Straberg approach to method acting. It gives less of a voice to the Adler or Meisner approach. 
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
As previously stated, Meisner and Adler are largely shut out from this article.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
The links seem to work. The sources largely support the claims in the article. I looked at Note 32: "JASON ROBARDS DEAD Oscar-winning actor star of stage, screen".
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
Not all the sources are reliable. There are a few sources that are biased in one direction (ex: "Salvaging Strasberg at the Fin de Siècle"). Most sources come from books and some from articles. However, some are biased. The bias is not noted. 
Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
The definition of method acting, the representation and differences between the different versions of method acting, and adding a page on the Strasberg method. 
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
This is a C-Class article under the Theatre WikiProject. 
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
It talks about what information should and should not be kept to best represent the topic. A discussion in class usually argues about the intentions of an actor, director, writer, the meaning of the play, etc. More or less, the goal of Wikipedia is to have reliable sources while in class we already have those reliable sources. 
My question is: How does one define method acting if there is no scholarly consensus?
PatrickDQuinn1 (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: How did he originally describe his own system of techniques?  Nowadays, people will call it “method” because they knew about Method acting first — however, if Dilip's work preceeded the Stanislavski%27s system, then it is unfair to call it “method” in reference to “Method”.  — JamesEG (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it’s a fair question, I would start this topic yself if you hadn’t. Dilip’s work did not preceed Stanislawski’s system, but it was not based on it either, so it sounds like we have the word “method” used emphatically here. This prompts the question: does the section on Indian cinema belong in this article? Paroles2000 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Dilip Kumar did not precede Stanislawski's work, though he developed his technique independent of Stanislawski. However, we need to remember that "method acting" in current context no longer refers to the technique, but a concept of acting. If we were to treat "method acting" as specific to Stanislawski's techniques, then we are left with no alternative term for actors who follow a similar concept but have never read Stanislawski. Hence, for all sense and purpose, "method" and "Method" should be treated synonymous.  Karan1311 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Indian cinema]] and [[Dilip Kumar]] 

message: Being a method actor myself, I wanted to see well-known names who are included in this article's list. A bunch I knew who'd repeatedly self-identified as method are in it, plus some I did not know ... and then I checked to see if Tom Cruise was there, because I know is not. He is on the list. I checked the reference, it says nothing about him being method, and the "evidence" is an anecdote that could be true of anyone. Cruise was on the Inside the Actor's Studio TV show, and explicitly said he is not a method actor. 2603:8001:6A01:FA93:9DC9:5A72:EB33:81D0 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know I'm late to the discussion but I agree that it should be removed. Way too much of the article is dedicated to this list; it's fine to list a prominent example or two but this article is not "List of actors that a source has described as being a method actor" and such a list is redundant with :Category:Method actors. Removing that section took the page from 80,532 bytes to 30,346 bytes; the article should focus on what method acting is and not put so much emphasis on actors that any random source just happens to describe as a method actor. - Aoidh (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list of actors is suspect 

message: The part of this article about the psychological affects of method acting seems to have been copy-pasted from another source. It lacks proper punctuation and barely makes sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AFC1:500:C54F:1C2C:ED0C:DC19 (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This section is a mess