Jump to content

Talk:Jason Schreier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birth year

[edit]
  • He was 32 on 16 April 2020 resulting in: 1987 or 1988 (age 36–37) [1]
  • He was 31 on 24 June 2018 resulting in: 1986 or 1987 (age 37–38) [2]

So he must be born in 1987. In response to IceWelder, I do not think this would consistute WP:OR as per WP:CALC. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively agree, but waiting for third opinions. Pinging article creator @Masem. IceWelder [✉] 20:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As along as you can source the ages on dates, it is no OR to calc the birth year. We can't put in approach birth date ranges but putting these together to get 1987 is just fine. --Masem (t) 21:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, we can fix the date from this [3] May 10, and add the above to the year. --Masem (t) 21:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of parents' occupation

[edit]

Removal [4]. Parents of notable people are usually mentioned within the early life section of the article since it is an important aspect to most people's early life. I do not see how his parents' occupation and where he was from are irrelvant. It is sourced to The New York Times, a reliable source. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit published in the NY Times, it is technically a primary source as it is authored by Schreier's father. Nonetheless, I agree that parents should be mentioned, as they are on the majority of biographical articles, regardless of whether the parents are themselves notable. Pinging @SnowFire. IceWelder [✉] 15:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as long as its from an RS, we normally include a reasonable amount of info on the parents - generally their nationality and profession, at most. We dont want a full bio of the parents (if they're notable, they get their own article for that), but its usually helpful to see how a child differs from what he was raised as, as long as that can be reliably sourced. --Masem (t) 15:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the source does not say where Schreier was from, Spy-cicle. It says that his parents are of White Plains, whatever that means (live there now? born there? maybe it only applies to the father?). Secondly, Masem: sure, parents are frequently reasonable to write about, but only if discussed in secondary, reliable sources. This condition is easily met for many modern biographies, but does not seem to be met currently, so "as long its from an RS" does not apply yet here. Sourcing to a wedding notice written by the family is basically the equivalent of citing someone's Twitter feed directly - it can be okay for a topic already established to be of interest, but it shouldn't introduce a new topic. If his parents are notable, then find a reliable secondary source that talks about them. That wedding notice shouldn't be used to reference anything other than the fact he got married, to who, and when. SnowFire (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it is still worth noting where his parents are from (which you removed [5]). Being published in the The New York Times is not the same as "citing someone's Twitter feed directly". The New York Times is a reliable source (WP:RSP) whether or not it was written by Elliot Schreier becuase it has fact checkers and editoral oversight. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the removal is the point? That edit is what I'm suggesting be re-instated, it wasn't an accident or something. (And I wasn't the IP address who noticed this originally and removed it).
More generally, as a matter of policy, while usually the problem on Wikipedia is not enough content, there is the occasional reverse issue - too much content, based on weak sources. The result can be weirdly voyueristic articles of people of borderline notability. While this is harmless 80% of the time, 20% of the time we end up with a very angry WP:BLP subject that their life is being stalked and distorted by strangers on the Internet. As such, it's best to stick to indisputably on-point sources, even if the result is a short article. Once some magazine somewhere does an interview with Schreier and they discuss his familial background, it's "fair game." There's a genuine WP:SECONDARY source. We can do better than an obscure wedding announcement.
Also, I continue to dispute the idea that we even know for sure this is where his parents are from. Let's talk about a totally hypothetical case, John Doe the mostly minor league baseball player. Suppose Doe was raised in Sacramento California, but later moved to Tokyo to join the Nippon Professional Baseball league. His parents, meanwhile, moved to Minneapolis, long after Doe moved out. In a random short wedding announcement, there is a single sentence that says "Doe is a son of Iris Doe and Elliot Doe of Minneapolis, where the groom's parents own and operate a business that manufactures knitting yarn." Is this connection to Minneapolis so important it should go in John Doe's article - a place he himself never lived? Why is this relevant? SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not really addressing the point. In this case, this New York Times article is reliable and parents are significant part of a person's early life to be mentioned as can be seen on the plethora of biographical articles found on Wikipedia. Noting that his parents run a run a business that manufactures knitting yarn and are from from White Plains, New York will not result in them "being stalked and distorted by strangers on the Internet". Even if they did not want to this to be public infomation, why on Earth would his father include this in a national newspaper? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. For the case of John Doe - should Doe's article include that his parents are of Minneapolis? Note that in Doe's case, I'm explicitly saying that Doe never lived in Minneapolis and has nothing to do with it.
I've addressed your point - I don't think Wikipedia should be using wedding announcements as sources, as a matter of policy. Yes, even if it was published in the NYT. (I say this as someone who has cited the NYT all over the place on Wikipedia and has a subscription to them.) A wedding announcement is a classic example of providing data that is unobjectionable 90% of the time, but becomes a WP:BLP violation 10% of the time from misinterpretations or sloppy journalism or changed circumstances, and it is not worth taking that risk.
For this article, my objection is easily addressed: find another, better source. If you can, there'll be no complaints from me, and we don't need to debate a wedding announcement's reliability, we can use that new source. (And if it's NOT easily addressed, then that suggests that maybe this detail isn't as relevant as you think it is.) SnowFire (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am I just imagining it, or is the wedding notice back in the article? I feel like maybe there was some consensus I've missed out on. It was meant to be removed, right? ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the relevant citations along with the template for sources being too closely involved with the subject. ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I've removed it again. @Spy-cicle: please stop adding it back. WP:BLPSPS is clear that this source is not sufficient. We need actual reliable, third-party sources to support these claims. Woodroar (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jason_Schreier&oldid=1209258693"