Talk:Jack Schlossberg

(削除) The skepticism and cynicism on this page by particular editors are astounding. From perusing the archives and the deletion nominations for this subject, it's as if some people think there's a conspiracy to make the subject notable by the media or there is a big push by the Kennedy clan to make this guy happen. Face the music, the Kennedys attract media attention, this subject, fairly or not, is notable and has become notable through the years organically. We are not scraping the barrel here for reliable independent sources. Don't let some bias make you populate a whole talk page talking about advertisements when this is just run-of-the-mill coverage for some guy the media re-discover year in and year out. And not every article is a primary source... unless the editors have evidence these articles are part of some Kennedy machinery and the writers are connected to the family. Otherwise, it looks like you're just wearing a tinfoil hat - a set the Kennedys attract in droves. Sharonstonebasicinstinct (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We're not going to have a page chock full of trivia regardless of subject notability. Encyclopedia is not a sensationalized magazine or rag sheet tabloid. Graywalls (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) ::This page's issue doesn't lie on trivia, because where is the trivia? From all these very looong discussions, the only trivia I have read from the page is in the one-sentence Personal Life section which apparently wasn't an issue to you despite the very many issues you have on this page. Shows your priorities, but okay. Sharonstonebasicinstinct (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

Striking out comments created by confirmed sockpuppet of Maxen Embry (talk · contribs) Graywalls (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As discussed above, there are issues and disagreements over inclusion worthiness.

Discussion started at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jack_Schlossberg_and_pages_on_Kennedy_family_as_well_as_JFK_descendants to seek external input. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Unfriendnow:, Concerning the disagreement with regard to Special:Diff/1249973757. I feel your change places too much emphasis on this part of the article. education and family pedigree in the lede, as WP:LEDE should summarize broadly summarize the key points of the article rather than emphasize certain things and I think it's undue to give this much weight to family/education in lede. I have looked at some biography articles that are good articles as points of reference. Graywalls (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

None of the info in the lead is WP:TRIVIA and So there is no reason to get rid of the biography. Doesn't matter if other articles don't have leads as long, i can find others that do. This is all important basic information that I believe should stay. Unfriendnow (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Given that his real-world (ie. the sources) notability is almost entirely because of his family pedigree, it would be unusual not to include pedigree in the lead. We often do that in bios that have famous family connections. -- Green C 15:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

User:GreenC, I don't really want to get too deeply into article content, but in the versions advocated by Unfriendnow almost half the lead consists of "son of", etc., and family relationships shouldn't take up so much space. Notability should NOT come from family relationships, per WP:INHERITED. I also really don't see why his education should be in the lead; we don't do that regularly. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The current lead is fine by me. It's important to note who he is the son of and grandson of, since that is what he mainly known for and how he got popular for being the "grandson of". Unfriendnow (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

You are confirming precisely what is so problematic, and you're not helping. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

There is nothing problematic about reliable sources that cover someone because they are the offspring of someone famous. This belief has become part of the DNA of Wikipedia, but there is not a single policy, guideline, essay or consensus discussion that supports it. -- Green C 23:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Notability comes from sources, and most sources cover him due to his family connections. Have you read WP:INHERITED, and understand what it says? It says: "arguments to avoiding during AfD discussions", for example, "Keep. He is notable not because of sources or any rules based reason but because he is the grandson of JfK". That is what INHERIT is meant to prevent, bad arguments at AfD. There is a big caution message at the top of the essay: "This section is not a content guideline or policy", which is the situation here. Sources cover him mainly due to family connections, it is the primary reason for his notability (sources). -- Green C 23:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

User:GreenC, I'm not sure where all this condescension and disdain comes from. Yes, I have read it (is there a "raise eyebrow emoji"?). I can't really follow your DNA analogy and I won't try. What I do know is that the argument "he's notable because of his family" is your own (interesting move--you know why they covered the guy?), and it's a lousy argument: he's notable, I suppose, because he got written up, but that does not mean that you can extend "he got wrote up because he was in that family" to "our article should overwhelmingly focus on the family connections".In other words, it's the premise, "There is nothing problematic about reliable sources that cover someone because they are the offspring of someone famous", that's problematic. No one ever said that there was anything problematic about that, but the "because they are" is a non sequitur, and it's your own. How much of that family stuff needs to be in the lead, however, should not be dictated by your opinion on why this guy is notable. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Why do you think he is being covered so frequently in the press, if not for his family ties? This is not "my opinion", according to our article and sources, "Schlossberg has been the subject of media coverage throughout his life.. Media outlets have portrayed Schlossberg as a "new face" of the Kennedy family, and a "new hope" of the Democratic party." None of that makes sense except for his family ties. -- Green C 02:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Sensationalism is part of media coverage to keep audience engaged, get subscription purchases, and encourage magazine purchases. Magazines are meant to be pleasing to read. Celebrity gossips is one of the most popular magazine topics. They're not meant to be literature or textbooks. Graywalls (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The sources are reliable. It's not sensationalism that "Media outlets have portrayed Schlossberg as a 'new face' of the Kennedy family, and a 'new hope' of the Democratic party." Notability is not concerned why they are famous, only that they are notable, which we define by coverage in reliable sources. These conversations remind me of all those AfDs over the past 10 years, where some tried and failed to delete the article. It's the same old discredited arguments of INHERIT and source reliability. -- Green C 14:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@GreenC:, The discussion now is not the question whether the said information is reliable. It's a question of WP:DUE, Courtesy ping to @Drmies: Graywalls (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Of course, for the reasons already noted, he is most notable due to his family connections. Nobody has presented a convincing argument why else the press is covering him?! The press has even directly asserted why they are covering him, as the "new face" of the Kennedy family (family connection), and as a "new hope" for the Democrats (following his grandfather's success). -- Green C 18:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I just posted a question at Wikiproject Biopgrahy to see if such practice is customary on biography article. Graywalls (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I just came from there, if, as seems likely, he is readily known as, "Jack Kennedy's grandson", it should be in the lead. Such family connection prominence happens sometimes, for some people. See also Anna Curtenius Roosevelt and other people in her family. The lead fulfills much of its purpose when it answers 'how is this person known', and the body follows suit. That said, I could also see shortening it from what is there now, and using Kennedy family and the president, as the only links in the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll go ahead and shorten it, to see if that compromise works. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The old one was better. It's obvious he is related to the Kennedy family, we don't need that in there. Unfriendnow (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It is not better form an NPOV standpoint. Sure, we could do take out the Kennedy family and shorten it further, to just the president. I put that there as a compromise to anyone who wants family in the lead. The problem is that half the article is not about his family, nor should it be, so the lead should not be half about his family, so thus you have an NPOV problem. The details of his family go in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This source provides information as to which culture Schlossberg self-identifies with. It was deleted Special:Diff/1265899403/1266029525 as "trivial" information, not worthy of notice or mention in his biography. Really? Also, it was said the source is "primary", which is not correct: Reporters who interview a subject and report on what they said are engaging in "journalism". They research primary sources (eg. interviews) and report on it - this is why it's called "secondary" - one step removed from the original primary source. Even it was primary, that is OK on Wikipedia. Only not every source can be WP:PRIMARY. -- Green C 06:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Opened a discussion at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#HeyAlma.com -- Green C 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

A new source on this question The Jewish Chronicle : [1] .. the sources will keep rolling in because this is a notable issue, evidenced by media coverage. -- Green C 16:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Is someone taking the piss? Seriously, if it's a euphemism for sexual practices then it probably shouldn't be on the page. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You 2603:8081:8404:61A9:DC47:746E:4748:DB1F (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• Low-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• Low-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States articles

• Noindexed pages