Talk:Sarah Treem

Primary sources

As I noted in my original edit summary, I removed certain information according to Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. I felt that in this context, the information did not meet the core Wikipedia standards of Verifiability for exceptional claims (apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary sources) and no original research via synthesis of published material (Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.). Dancter (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's okay for one editor to delete so much work -- work that is on the public record and is freely available. Does it have to do with the fact that Treem is a woman, is possibly not considered notable and worthy of having an entry that includes detailed information that comes from sources like The New York Times? Or maybe would the biographical information be more acceptable if it came from FilmReference.com and TVGuide.com, which are pseudo news cites pulling from the exact sources I used? Beyond this, I edit biographical pages all the time and what I have done here is the same treatment other pages get. Information is found online, in free, public sources. Of course I could over-source the information you have redacted -- again, public, googlable -- but you will delete it out of an over-developed sense of Wikipedia standards? This behavior is mystifying. The key thing you say is "I felt that this content, this information did not meet the core Wikipedia standards...." Exactly -- YOUR judgment? But who is to say that is right? I just don't understand this. And again my main gripe with Wikipedia editors deleting content on a clean page: why not focus on pages that actually need help. You came in and deleted verified legit content. How about moving on and focusing on a page that needs attention? - Erika BrillLyle (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't have a major problem with the article as of the posting of this comment. If you wish, we can discuss that other content, though I'd prefer it be without the "impassioned" rhetoric. Framing my attempts to respect the subject's privacy as a suppression of women, especially in light of the 2014 celebrity photo leaks and the Gamergate controversy — both of which notably involved dissemination of content about women that they did not wish to be publicized — was upsetting to me, and not appreciated in the least. If there is any question about how the subject feels about that content, a likely answer can be found in the fact that the username "Stasst" is probably short for "Sarah Treem's assistant." Dancter (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for needlessly personalizing the discussion with the insult "impassioned" rhetoric. Isn't there a Wikipedia civility guideline that this violates? Ironically, I was actually participating in the Wikipedia:Meetup/globalwomen#Outcomes_GWWI_.233 while working on this page -- and while not a woman of color the subject is a young woman in a field that is predominantly male. So the two comparisons you cite at my question of gender bias are somewhat funny. I got into editing Wikipedia because of the gender bias issue. Quite frankly, I was actually confused as to why you made the edits, and was looking for the motivation, which is why I asked the question. I still think the information like date of birth and full birth name -- that comes from a verifiable, public source, is acceptable. This information is not always with citations on many many pages (either male or female subjects). But I will let someone else stumble upon the page and make that edit and you can initiate your objections with them. I am not an editor that deletes another editor's work unless there are grave errors and/or formatting issues. I focus more on cleanup of citations and making sure a page is in good shape instead. So I find this whole interaction very strange and such a waste of resources, as it truly adds nothing to the page. - Erika BrillLyle (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to Wikipedia's policy on civility, if you wish to review it. I had been citing Wikipedia policies from the beginning — policies that have been developed over many years, and widely supported by community consensus — being mindful not simply of the letter, but also of the spirit of those policies. I even mentioned some specific clauses that touched upon my issues. You shouldn't have been confused about my reasons. Instead of addressing them substantively, you dismissed them out of hand, apparently on the basis of my phrasing, identifying "I felt…" as the "key thing" about my argument. Not only that, but you sought to attribute motive, which is simply unnecessary and unproductive. In the process of doing so, you essentially ask me outright if I was being motivated by a bias against women, which I found to be an utterly baffling and upsetting assumption of bad faith on your part, for the reason I stated. What about my edits would prompt such a suspicion? How am I supposed to respond to that? You were adding more than just a full name and a date of birth. Yes, similar content exists on other articles, many without citations. I would note that with respect to your usage of certain primary sources, leaving those citations out would have actually been better. Again, that was addressed in the section I mentioned in my original edit summary. Dancter (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Filmography edits

So what you just waited a while and made re-edits to the Filmography that were already reverted because you could? It would be great if the edits you make to this entry were constructive or added content in some way, instead of reducing information on the page. It is unclear where the value add and motivation is regarding the edits you've made here. Please maybe think about this and reconsider your actions and how they affect content. It's very concerning. - Erika BrillLyle (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)