Talk:Sarah Michelle Gellar

Clarity needed

This is not important but as written is a bit unclear. As a child, Gellar modeled for magazines.[6] At the age of four, she was spotted by an agent in a restaurant in Uptown Manhattan. Two weeks later, she auditioned for a part in An Invasion of Privacy,... She subsequently appeared in a controversial television commercial.... How old was she when she began modeling? 74.109.33.112 (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Her major modelling work was after the McDonalds case to my knowledge but I've never heard an exact age but it definitely shouldn't be at the start of the paragraph

Her first interaction with showbusiness was the agent spotting her and then the audition for An Invasion of Privacy.So the placement definitely should be after those two items and probably after McDonalds .I will move it there if anyone doesn't object .Garda40 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now moved that info about modelling to the end of the paragraph .Garda40 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

SMG also appears in the Stone Temple Pilots video for "Sour Girl" circa 1999. There is no mention of this in the article. 216.162.30.132 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Chris R.216.162.30.132 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The editing war continues

I don't really even care to know what is going on between two editors on this page, but I do know that I have reached just about my tolerance level for it on this article. If one of you has conclusive proof that the other is operating two registered accounts concurrently, take it to WP:SSP. If you have disagreements about editing issues, take it here. Otherwise, I'm going to open a WP:RfC or invited adminstrator involvement, because this has become disruptive on both parts. There is nothing wrong with combining work into one filmography table. There is also nothing wrong with the awards being incorporated into the filmography table, and that, in fact, is the proscribed way to display awards according to WP:ACTOR. If you disagree about other aspects, either discuss it or stop edit warring over it. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What is going on is simple in that I believe Saa19952 ,SMG055 ,Sebas1955 and 200.116.62.13 are the same editor based on similar editing patterns and form of english used on my talk page [1],[2],[3] .Most of their edits have not been great and have been reverted by other editors including yourself .[4]

So when another editor completely reformats the filmography Gats59 (a newly formed account 3 of which their 5 edits have been to SMG related articles ) and then Saa19952 reverts the reversion I did then I am suspicious of those edits especially since none of these edits are being done with an edit summary (something I always provide and which you used to point out my rationale was wrong ) .Incidentally the piece of info I was referring to when I said removed was the "Lord of the rings spoof" .

Can I have conclusive proof of any of this and which account(s) may be linked ? No since I don't have admin tools to do that .

Please do open an WP:RfC or send it to WP:SSP .I've had little success in sending reports to various places on Wikepedia in the past with reports being ignored because of format errors or simply apparently being ignored . Garda40 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not the person who has more than once stated there is a sock puppet at work, I have no inclination to open a WP:SSP when I don't have the information to do so. Nor did I say I would open the SSP. If you truly have enough evidence to present for a sock puppet investigation and request for checkuser, follow that link and file it. You don't have to have adminstrator tools to logically lay out your evidence regarding similar edits, similar writing styles, whatever else on which you are basing your decision that there is one person at work. I don't really think you want an WP:RfC opened, my comments about opening one are in relationship to the ongoing edit wars going on with this page, and if investigated, will likely be elsewhere. Personally I want them stopped. I've read the talk page posts that have been made and really, adminstrators will look at conduct on both sides. Whatever is going on behind the scenes, it always seems to end up on this article and that is going back a few months, to my awareness. Just as in the past, there was factually nothing wrong with the change in filmography tables. Either format is acceptable, with the exception that the revision just done incorporated the awards into the filmography table and that is absolutely acceptable and in fact, is what is recommended. If memory serves, I made a point before to you about an edit that was, itself, fine. It is just that it seems that the reverts are done whether the edits are fine or not. That is what has to stop. Make a report to WP:AN/I, file the WP:SSP case, whatever you need to do, but please stop handling this in this way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

when I don't have the information to do so.' I gave you the information I have .Probably I could collect more edit differences to put across the point but that is about it .

If you truly have enough evidence to present for a sock puppet investigation and request for checkuser, follow that link and file it. I not sure if I do anyway ( a vandal I reported was rejected on basis of not enough evidence and the vandal I reported a few minutes later went on a vandalism spree ) . I don't believe it was on this article but as far as I recall it was a sockpuppet case I reported ( which turned out to be true ) which was rejected because of formatting problems which has also given me no faith in those reporting process ( at least when they are done by me ) .

If memory serves, I made a point before to you about an edit that was, itself, fine And I pointed out on your talk page I had made a mistake when reverting that .

It is just that it seems that the reverts are done whether the edits are fine or not . Previous to today the reverts done to edits by SMG055 on Sep 30th were done Elizabeth Bathory and on Sep 26th by you . I actually had no problem with those edits since in the first case I thought the info inserted was more helpful ( Ep names ) and the second one reverted by you they moved a paragraph around .I see by Saa19952's talk page that you were the first one to have problems with them about editing filmography tables for no stated reason .

Whatever is going on behind the scenes I've been quite upfront in saying I believe there is sockpuppetry at work in this article so I have no idea why you appear to think anything else is going on ( at least on my part ) .Garda40 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is, I don't really care to make a sock puppet report when I don't have the specific diffs to show the relationships. Because various editors have less than stellar English skills doesn't automatically equate to the same person. I see similar writing all the time. If you think you see a similarity, report it. You should use diffs that clearly show posting identical content or reverting in tandem. If you don't, it can't be investigated and I honestly don't want to do the work for you. My point to you is that because you have issues with this editor, or a group of editors, whatever is the case, is that there are certainly times when it appears to me that you revert them whether they are valid edits or not. It means someone has to check both the edits to be sure. What is going on behind the scenes is the myriad posts to one another's talk pages that involve the sock accusations, etc. That is accomplishing nothing and only serves to make the stress higher and is not productive. All I see is what is on this page and honestly, it comes down to being disruptive. I'm not just posting to you, I'm posting to you, Saa19952 and whatever troops accompany you. Work it out and please stop fighting it on this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Harvard Man quote

Editor Lawrence King has removed this Blockquote three times and I reverted twice whle claiming it is not about censorship but about notability .

Rolling Stone said, "Yes, that's our Buffy, Sarah Michelle Gellar, playing a cheerleader who is not above sneaking off to the woods with her boyfriend, hiking up her skirt, sitting on his dick and bumping and grinding without missing a beat in the conversation. Gellar is a long way here from Scooby-Doo – thank the gods – and James Toback's Harvard Man is an even longer way from the Hollywood drool that pretends to take on issues – sexual, ethical, criminal – that often come with a college education".

but in their edit summaries using terms like "explicit details " ( a term I have only ever seen used in relation to sexual material ) but not term "excessive detail " which is term I have seen other editors use if they believe article or section of article is overdetailed .

Making use of "Rolling Stone" quotation and why they think in particular it helps her shed her "good girl" image even more apparently serves no purpose that isn't already served by the previous sentence [5] despite fact that "Cruel Intentions" had sex scenes so what therefore is there in "Harvard Man" according to "Rolling Stone" that helps her shed her "good girl " image even more . It is the fact that scene(s) in "CI" were not to degree that she did in "Harvard Man" .

Makes mention again in their last edit summary that it is a sex scene [6] and saying it is not notable because she has done thousands of scenes yet ignoring fact that Reliable source , in this case , Rolling Stone , is the one that singled out that scene .

Editor is free to find quotation(s) about other scenes in this or her other work in Reliable sources , if they exist , but if they don't or can't find such quotes that doesn't mean this quotation should be removed for purposes of "balance" because it is about a sex scene which seems to be editors problem with quote .Garda40 (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The salient point of the reference is that she was shedding a teenybopper/good girl image. There is really no need or point in including a lengthy quote that in no way expands the point. That it includes too much detail is obvious. We aren't Wikiquote, where this would still be unneeded detail. It lends undue weight to one role, while the citation itself is sufficient. As an aside, it's non-productive to edit war over such things, which is something both of you were doing. Please read WP:BRD: be bold, which apparently you were, revert which the other editor did, and discuss, which you've failed to do until it begs WP:3RR. It's overkill to include the lengthy quote. LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the fact that this turned into an edit war. I didn't cross the 3RR boundary, but I got pretty close. I should have started a discussion on the talk page instead. Garda40, thanks for moving this discussion on the talk page! I won't make any more edits to this page until this discussion is resolved.

Also, I agree that I should not have used the word "explicit" in my edits. Although that word's primary meaning is "excessive level of detail", it is very often used in a sexual context, and therefore my first edit explanation could be interpreted as a kind of censorship, which was not my point.

My main concern has been described very well by LaVidaLoca above, and I agree with everything he has said.

I also have a secondary concern, which is the overall proportion of sexuality-related information to other information in this article. I agree that Wikipedia is not censored. We should not ban information from a page because it is sexual in nature. But neither should we should give undue weight to "Sarah Michelle Gellar as a sex symbol" and ignore "Sarah Michelle Gellar as an actor", especially because her profession is listed in this article as actress. Let me explain exactly what I mean. (1) In the second paragraph of the page, the article lists all nine of SMG's films. It gives their names, but does not describe the roles she plays in those films, with one exception: it says she plays "an ex-porn star" in Southland Tales. (2) The In the Media section ignores the dozens of times that she has been interviewed in sci-fi and fantasy magazines about Buffy and The Grudge, and instead focuses on how many times she has been voted "sexy" in various magazines. Not only is this out of proportion, but it misleads the reader about what SMG has been doing in the magazine media. When she is interviewed for a Buffy magazine, she herself has to take the time to meet with an interviewer, but when a magazine declares her "sexy", that reflects a choice made by the magazine, not by SMG. (3) Three sentences in this article describe her clothing: in one movie, she "looks great in a corset"; on a magazine cover, she was "Wearing a black lace brassiere"; and on another occasion, she "wore this skintight Herve Leger dress". Of all the different clothing ensembles that SMG has worn in her life, on screen and off, are these really the three most important? I've seen quite a few things that SMG has appeared in, and these three clothing examples are not representative of what she usually wears. On the other hand, I believe that some of her male fans might remember these three outfits especially well -- but that is not a criteria for Wikipedia notability. (4) Of all the scenes she has been in, in her television shows and movies, the only one described in detail is a sex scene (the Harvard Man scene that we have been disputing). I understand that a porn actress' most important scene might be a sex scene, but is SMG's most important scene really a sex scene? If not, why is it the only one described in detail in this article? Many magazines and articles and even books have praised her emotional work in The Body, but that isn't even mentioned in this article. (5) Many critics have commented that the role of "Buffy" was an important role historically, since it was a strong female lead who was physically strong and yet (unlike, say, Charlie's Angels) did not primarily use her sexuality to defeat men -- she hit them and outsmarted them instead. Yet this article barely even hints at that fact. Each of these five things is acceptable by themselves, but taken together, they give undue weight to SMG as a sex symbol, and not enough focus on her as an actress. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep on saying it is not an issue of censorship but your problem with the article and again I'm seeing it mentioned here is sexual on the talk page and your solution is not finding material to "balance" it up but to pull material out of it .

In relation to the "In the Media" section you are free to read through any of those interviews about BTVS or other films and include such relevant information as there might be in any of them .Is it a sad commentary on the magazine world that they will use words like "sexy" or magazines like Maxim will vote her "sexy"  ? Yes it is but that's the way the world is and not the way we would like it .

While it was a reviewer who used she "looks great in a corset" and editor of Wiki (I think) who made mention of "black lace brassiere"" it was actually SMG herself in an interview that brought up the fact that she "wore this skintight Herve Leger dress" and pointed out it wasn't something she would have been comfortable wearing previously ( So SMG herself appears to think that dress was an important clothing choice )

And again it might be a sad commentary on the world that the only scene that is described in detail in a magazine is a sex scene .

Many magazines and articles and even books have praised her emotional work in The Body, but that isn't even mentioned in this article

So mention it yourself . I don't believe any editor would stop you including such information .But the solution you appear to be using is that if there isn't a quotation about "The Body" or whatever other episode/film then there shouldn't be a quotation of "Harvard Man" as if that somehow now balances out the article

As with all your points including the fifth one you say the article is unbalanced as regards to SMG as a sex symbol but your solution is not to add material to "balance" it up as regards SMG as an actor but to remove material especially of a sexual nature .

That's just censorship operating under a fancy name ( balance ,undue weight) but it doesn't stop it being censorship . Garda40 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Michelle Prinze

Shouldn't the article be changed to Sarah Michelle Prinze with a redirect from the Sarah Michelle Gellar page now that her name has been legally changed? --194.125.112.67 (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Sarah Michelle Gellar is her name under the Screen Actors Guild of America - one she will use for TV and movie roles. Sarah Prinze is her married name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.190.65 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally prefers the stage/professional name over the current legal name. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts

Why is it whenever I put down anything about Sarah Michelle Gellar knowing taekwondo and/or kickboxing, it gets deleted? I had exact sources for those claims and everything! Smijes08 talk, 11:28, 21 December 2009

Saturday Night Live - hosting date discrepancy

There is an error of sorts regarding the hosting of SNL. Is it 2000 or 2002? The following is from the Wikipedia page "Sarah Michelle Gellar"

Breakthrough (1997–2003) Gellar has also hosted Saturday Night Live a total of three times (1998, 1999, and 2002)

Filmography section - 1998 Saturday Night Live 1998, 1999, 2000 (3 episodes)

Ozjeremia (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IMDB credit

Has there been a rule change that an IMDB credit for a past project in which the person appears in the entire episode eg Grosse Pointe is not accepted as a source .

Because if that's the case there is a fair number of past projects that needed to pulled out of this bio and other bio's because their only source is IMDB Garda40 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a rule change, IMDB is not an acceptable source, period. If the appearance is actually notable, it will be mentioned in some reliable source or another. We just don't accept IMDB willy-nilly. Everything on it is subject to user input. 23:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

|

IMDB is not an acceptable source, period.

Which appears to contradict this answer [7] that I got the other day about Amazon on the Reliable source noticeboard in which someone mentioned IMDB "Ottobib and WorldCat are exceptional for books, while Allmusic and IMdB are great for music and film "

And this answer from 3 days ago here IMDB_as_a_source From Erik ( who does a lot of work in the Films Wikiproject ) "IMDb can be used as a resource to find credits, which are typically not disputable by anyone, but caution should be used when the film is less mainstream." or this "Credits should be sourced to the film itself, since that's where IMDB supposedly gets its information from anyway. A supplemental source to IMDB (for ease of viewing by the reader) would be nice, but there's no reason to cite IMDB by itself when the most reliable source is the film's own credits " .Robot Chicken though is a case where the reliable source , the show credits , are wrong since she is listed in every episode ( The same as Mila Kunis ) ,it seems to be a running joke, but IMDB is the only source I've ever seen listing the actual shows her voice appears in .

BLP:IMDB where I think the most revelant quotes are "A good rule of thumb is that IMDB credit listings are generally reliable" ,"For credited cast & crew on widely released films, IMDb achieves a high degree of reliability"

The rule seems to be be link to the film or in this case show first but you run into a problem then with Grosse Pointe or some of the other projects which are not generally available and since it's even less acceptable to link to a copyright infringing copy of the show then the consensus seems to be that IMDB is acceptable for credits .

If the appearance is actually notable, it will be mentioned in some reliable source or another

Except in one case I can think of involving SMG herself the NY Times (?) review of one of her two early career theater appearances doesn't mention her but there is ample evidence she was in the play from the theater programme and in a photo from the set . Garda40 (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment in your first link is highly discussed and the essential is that we try to avoid sourcing to IMDB because of questions. Your second link goes on to explain why we should not rely on IMDB, due to noted errors. In fact, all of those discussions are widely split on the validity of IMDB and the bottom line is that another reliable source is preferable. I bet you could find sources for this series appearance. Surely one of these would render a reliable source. We just don't tend to link to IMDB for sourcing, as was noted in those discussions you linked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

People need to stop submitting Gellar's episode numbers for All My Children. Gellar appeared in way more than 25 episodes during her time on the show as she was a popular contract series regular. My estimate is she appeared in 200-300 episodes. IMDB does not have all the episode submitted for daytime shows. If you look at the shows episode list you will see it has roughly 1500 episodes when over 10,000 have been produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.231.4 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Small addition

She had a cameo role in the internet musical Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog. In the 2nd to last scene, she's in the audience wearing a black wig and sunglasses while Captain Hammer gives his speech to the community center. She walked onto the set (Guest of Whedon) and they put her in the audience during the filming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.255.110 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Main Image

I hoping someone might be able to find a new picture of SMG for the main image. She is now blonde again now and has been for some time and thought a more recent picture might be more relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.115.236 (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Trim "Personal" section

I have trimmed the Personal section of the article. It read like a magazine article, not an encyclopedia. --BweeB (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny Farm

Apparently, her scene was removed so maybe this should go on her filmography as such!78.148.98.129 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)