Talk:Ava DuVernay/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tone of site

With the edits and additions by recent contributors, the article has begun to read more like a fan site than a Wikipedia article. While I appreciate the helpful spirit in which I assume these contributions were written, the article no longer seems like an impartial encyclopedic entry of a movie director (see the article on prolific director Michael Apted as an example), particularly for one who (while talented and notable as a high-profile director woman of color) has directed far fewer films than well-known directors with smaller Wikipedia articles. In order to improve the site, I recommend the removal of irrelevant personal trivia, COI or biased quotations, and less than credible public sources. Furthermore, I recommend that we invite some experienced senior Wikipedia editors review the site and offer their suggestions as to how to improve this.--Tareekap (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As the editor who made these edits and additions I completely disagree. I was very careful to update the information with legitimate citations and used quotes when appropriate. I was very careful and thorough as the subject of this page has been in the press a lot recently. Before I made these edits the page was in my opinion not in good shape as far as supporting citations. I welcome advanced editor input of the page but not if it means deletion of content and citations. I'm not really sure where this fan slant is on this page because everything is sourced. Also even though I have not been a long-time Wikipedia editor it's a bit insulting to say that I have made a fan page here. I'm wondering if it has to do with DuVernay's gender or ethnicity. This is all very mystifying. -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

An additional thought: using Apted's minimally sourced and not very comprehensive page as an example of a good page -- well if I had time I would work to make his page better and more reflective of his career as well. -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And now I have seen that you have NOT in good faith decided to slash and burn and delete sourced content from the page! What on earth gives you the right to delete content. How about you go back to Apted's page and remove the IMDb citations (inappropriate citations) and beef up his page. What is the end-motivation of deleting properly sourced content that adds to the page. I would like to revert your edits because I find it unethical what you have done. I'm not interested in a flame war here, but really please examine if your actions here are being made in the best interests of Wikipedia, and are in line with the rules of Wikipedia -- versus your own possibly misguided OPINION of what a page should look like. -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have taken personal offense to something that was not meant in that way, and that you have responded with personal insults. While I have seen what you have worked on in the past, I've also actually been editing Wikipedia for over ten years; as such, I find it somewhat confusing as to the personalization of your response. If you don't mind, I will request the input of other editors and ask for their comments. Would you agree to this?--Tareekap (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not believe I was personalizing the issue that was raised -- to me this seems to be more about you personalizing a framework with which to view the page -- essentially your opinion as an editor, about what you consider to be acceptable content, versus what I consider to be acceptable content. Beyond opinion (yours vs. mine) I took issue with the fact that this information is widely covered in the press since it is pre-Oscar time and I had citations substantiating each and every one of these edits. To use Apted as an example muddies the water, makes it harder to accept the issue raised, since it is not a great example, especially from a citation point of view. The deletion of content is an issue for me, I admit. I find that more experienced editors tend to delete content versus taking the time to discuss or evaluate or teach. I don't understand how this is constructive or a good use of Wikipedia time as there are many pages in need of editing (i.e., adding content, citations, etc.) -- this page did not need that. In my opinion. I said before I would be happy for an experienced editor to look at the page, but I also don't think it's especially necessary, not if this is a disagreement between you and I. I also would prefer that content that is relevant and properly sourced not be deleted just so a more experienced editor can put their mark on the page. If there is value add and grammar cleanup and actual editing to improve the page, sure. But if it is deleting swaths of content, I'm not a fan of that. -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, Grantland is not just a sports blog, and the analysis by Matt Harris is actually closer to a scholarly journal than even the indepth feature article it is.... -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not personalizing – seriously? “wondering if it has to do with DuVernay's gender or ethnicity”, “you have NOT in good faith..”, “revert your edits because I find it unethical”, “please examine if your actions here are being made in the best interests..”, “your own possibly misguided OPINION..” Frankly, your response is surprising since I think most people would take umbrage at your statements and insinuations, but, then again, perhaps your definition of civil discourse is different from most. Nevertheless, since you say you are open to input from senior editors who are higher up the food chain, I will make some inquiries. Again, I had and have no intention of belittling your contributions, and quite frankly appreciate your enthusiasm for participating in Wikipedia. I made the changes based on my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines using factual, credibly sourced information that you would find in any encyclopedic biography article. Was my analysis (and subsequent edits) subjective? Of course, as are all of ours. I simply didn't believe that some of the text was either directly relevant or unbiased (without presenting any balancing counter-view). I have read some of your other contributions and notice that you tend to include much more personal information about the subjects than I would or use paragraph-long quotes from interviews or texts that I think could be largely condensed. But perhaps this is just a difference in styles. That is why I would prefer to have someone else review the article. In the future, I'm happy to discuss any disagreements you might have with my edits (and I will attempt to include specific references to Wikipedia guidelines per each edit), but I'd prefer to keep the discourse courteous. Thank you.--Tareekap (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Recommended references:

• Wikipedia:Relevance of content
• Wikipedia:Avoiding harm
• Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing quotations
• Wikipedia:Summary style
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tareekap (talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've thought about your suggestion to bring in another editor to look at the page and I don't think it is necessary. It sounds like you would bring in a friend and rip apart the page. I guess I would prefer to let people who have interest in the page and want to improve it -- and hopefully not delete cited content -- then let the natural progression happen. But to overarch backwards to have someone vet the page seems (a) unnecessary because quite frankly the page is in good shape and is vastly improved from the edits I've made and (b) inappropriate and not within the scheme of Wikipedia editing. No one has ever suggested this to pages I have created or added significant cited information. Again I don't think it is warranted. That's my opinion and I understand Wikipedia is a collaboration. This "review" seems odd and I'm not comfortable with it. -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of my discomfort with this whole interaction is the fact that your profile is new as of this year. I don't see 10 years worth of edits under your login so I'm a little suspicious of that. Can you explain this 10 yrs of editing you have? And really, come on, the heading here, calling into question the "tone" of the edits I've made, how is that neutral and constructive? I think my responses to you have been actually pretty constructive considering what your categorization was, as well as the deletions you went ahead and made without waiting for the Talk page discussion. -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Film Marketing, Film Distributor

The edit where Film Marketing/Marketer and Film Distributor were combined is an error. DuVarney even discussed it in interviews -- see Artistry and influences, second para. I have worked in the film industry and work in the entertainment industry currently, have a film studies degree and certification as a script supervisor. This is where I get my knowledge base on this. Also marketing and distribution in this instance is very clearly two different phases in DuVarney's career. And she has run companies that service these two different industries. Although it is possible for marketing and distribution to be considered a combined role and/or functionality, the distinction here is important to illustrate her career trajectory. The two descriptors also define two separate proficiencies. Also wanted to mention reason behind this type of distinction -- as an important and current trailblazer in film industry, the pathway of DuVernay's career -- especially given how public she has been about the details of her career -- are crucial to conveying who she is as a filmmaker today. Can be a great service to others following in her path and wondering how she did what she's done. Best, Erika -- BrillLyle (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)