Talk:Tammie Souza

Edits reverted?
Why were the edits on Tammie's film career removed? That was vandalistic. They were cited with two sources, written and visual, and not libelous in any manner.


 * And again. Tammy obviously doesn't want those films mentioned. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal information
It seems that Tammie.souza has expressed concerns about some of the current content - specifically the year and location of birth and her previous acting credits. I think a case can be made either way for the acting, but it makes sense to remove the year of birth now, per her wishes, and to discuss the inclusion of the place of birth. In regard to the year of birth, it seems the we can probably call it in favour of her privacy, especially given that it doesn't appear to have been public information, (the current inclusion was based on one clipping that stated that she was 19 at the time, from which the year has been surmised), so I'm inclined to leave it out. - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support leaving the birth details out at present, due to the poor source we have for it. However, if this information is in future reported in an appropriate source (and is, therefore, public), it should be mentioned in the article also, as is standard with biographies.
 * As for the filmography, I believe this should be included, as to my mind Ms. Souza's previous career as an actress is notable. However, the prose specifically highlights Ellen and Assault of the Killer Bimbos for additional mention ahead of the listed filmography. I think this may be giving her appearance in Assault of the Killer Bimbos undue weight, and perhaps it could be removed from the prose (but retained in the list).  AJ  Cham  08:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also agree with removing the questionable date of birth, and keeping the filmography section. Having an account remove cited and verifiable information is inappropriate, no matter who it is, even on a BLP article. The only exception would be is if the information is specifically causing the subject harm, which I doubt that a filmography section is doing. Glass  Cobra  19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Any opinions about the place of birth? It is well sourced, and I don't see it as a significant violation of privacy, but there seems to have been a wish to remove that as well. - Bilby (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of the statements above; although this is a biographical article, since the birthdate is inferred it seems to make sense to remove it. I would not agree with the removal of the career section. I don't see a problem with it remaining a part of the prose but if the subject feels so strongly perhaps relegating it to the "filmography" section would be a fair compromise. As far as the city of birth, I strongly feel that should stay in the article, again it's well sourced and pertinent to a biographical entry. Ethelcorp (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)