Talk:Jack Schlossberg

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

Notability[edit]

I don't see anything in the article that demonstrates notability aside from being JFK's grandson, which doesn't really count. Yale newspaper contributor? Nope. Training to become an EMT? Nope. Intends to possibly enter politics? Not until he actually does so. The ReLight project? Laudable, but no. Plenty of schoolchildren do good deeds - it's the type of thing that is usually mentioned in an "and finally" item on the 11 o'clock news, not in an encyclopedia. I don't think there's enough meat here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He does not come close to meeting the criteria stated at WP:ANYBIO. --Crunch (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a tag indicating his notability is questioned. If not delete, it would be best to redirect this article to the Kennedy family page. 174.226.5.112 (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His notability has been questioned already, and Admin overturned the deletion. I disagree with the redirect nomination, he should have his own page since the news about him are speeding up, especially in 2013. and 2014. is yet to come.--89.164.235.82 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admin overturned the deletion, but I also concur that he comes nowhere close to meeting the criteria for having a biographic article. He is the grandson of a prominent person with a Wikipedia article and writes for his school newspaper. I am also the grandson of someone with a Wikipedia article and also write for my university newspaper. Does that mean I get a Wikipedia article too? This page really should be deleted.
89.164.235.82 says that he might do something great in 2014, and this is a reason to give him an article. Until he does something great and noteworthy, there is just no justification of keeping this article on Wikipedia. 98.25.51.42 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t believe this article is still up. It is a gross example of white privilege on Wikipedia. I’m flagging it for deletion. TopDomino (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Category[edit]

Not sure what's causing a problem with this:

His father is of Jewish Ukrainian descent. We have a category for that. Regardless if John currently identifies as a practicing Jew, he is of Jewish descent. Regardless if someone considers Jewish to mean religion or ethnicity, he is of Jewish descent. The category does not say John is Jewish, it says he is of Jewish descent. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the only way one can be of "Jewish descent" is if one has ancestors from a Middle Eastern country like Israel or Jerusalem where Judaism is the most prominent religion. In those particular instances, one would ethnically be an Isrealite or Jerusalemite. Many Jews have no Middle Eastern ancestors, including converts. Ed's grandparents were from Ukraine, not the Middle East.174.252.34.230 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_descent.3F. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this argument is that until the late 19th century, there were hardly any Jews in the Middle East, most were in Europe (and around the world). The Jews have always maintained a distinct ethnic and religious identity regardless of their physical location, indeed it is an element of the Jewish identity called the Jewish diaspora. It makes no historical or common sense to argue only Jews from certain countries can claim Jewish descent. Furthermore the category under question has been well established and if you believe it shouldn't exist then you should take that to CfD, and not try to make a point by deleting individual cases like this one. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly what I meant..... Judaism has historically been prominent in the Middle East (think Biblical times). "Jewish descent" is an incorrect description- that would also mean all Christians have a common ethnicity (Christianity came from Judaism). I know many Jews with different backgrounds, many of which have no common ethnicity. Christisns of course are of all types of sthnicities (mang not sharing any common ethnic background). There are also those who convert to Judaism and/or Christianity. A few of my cousins are Jewish, and one of them brought up at his Bar Mitzvah that the only thing that separates Judaism from Christianity is their disagreement over whether or not Jesus (a Jew himself) was the Messiah/savior. The religion can indeed be found in just about every country, though the most prominent is Isreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.178.174 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, Wikipedia uses "Jewish descent" in its categorization schemes across thousands of articles by common consensus. Schlossberg has a Jewish father and belongs in such a category according to Wikipedia's common scheme. If you wish to argue there is no such thing as "Jewish descent", which to me sounds anti-Jewish in tone, that is your fight to make, but don't edit war over it in this article. The first place to discuss it is with the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, because what your suggesting impacts such a vast scope of the Wikipedia project. Your edits here amount to WP:POINT. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If one grandparent is French/Irish, for example.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many generations back should we go then? That's rather ridiculous. He could be 1/8th French and 1/8th Irish, and that counts? What if we found out he was 1/16th German, 1/32th Canadian? He is 100% American, that's the only category that counts. Dream Focus 21:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rules on categorizing say it shouldn't have a category for every possibility only those that are part of the topics notability. I'd argue that the Jewish father and Irish (Kennedy clan) are a part of his notability but the rest not so much. It's a subjective case. -- GreenC 21:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 'Green Cardamom', except for the "subjective case" part. John's father is 100% Jewish, so there's no place for doubt here. The other categories, however, are a bit problematic, for the reasons described by 'Dream Focus'. In my opinion they should be removed. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ed's grandparents were immigrants from Ukraine, that makes Jack part Ukrainian. Since Caroline is of mostly Irish descent with her mother Jackie having Irish, Scottish, English, and French ancestry, Caroline is ethnically Irish, Scottish, English, and French. Therefore, Jack's ethnicity is Ukrainian, Irish, Scottish, English, and French. Simple as that. I would disagree with the "Jewish descent" idea since historian John Weiss indicates in his book Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany that blood tests proved that a Jew is no different ethnically/racially than a non-Jew. In fact, no religion is an ethnicity/race. He writes "The Nazis had researchers working through the war analyzing Jewish blood to try to see what was Jewish about it," and "They were determined to find something different". In the end, they found nothing different. Also there happen to be many people who celebrate Judaism that do not share any common racial/ethnic background with one another. We should also include the categories for his mother's ethnicity, otherwise it suggests he was only ethnically Ukranian. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'XXSNUGGUMSXX', I know nothing about this book nor about the blood test it describes, but I do know for sure that the finding it "proved" (i.e. that a Jew is no different ethnically/racially than a non-Jew) is not even a fringe view, but is simply wrong, and that's an undisputed well established fact - because about 99% of today's Jews have very close genetic similarities and unique DNA, but I won't get into that here. All of Schlossberg's ancestors' countries account for a small percentage of his 'blood' and obviously shouldn't be given a category. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on ethnicity categories[edit]

Difficult to judge the result on this one. Although there is a majority in favour of using the father-related categories and not using the mother-related categories, I feel that the strongest arguments were put forward by the last two commenters ("not include" to both), and also find Tvoz's comments about it being difficult to justify categorisation by one parent's lineage but not the other comvincing. Therefore, overall I don't believe there is a consensus on either matter. Number 57 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which ethnicity categories to use in the article. The relevant guideline for categories is WP:DEFINING which recommends to categorize articles by their defining characteristics, but not every characteristic.

A 2-part question, father and mother.

Father

1. Should the category Category:American people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent be included?

Answer Include or Not Include

Mother

2. Which categories of the following should be included/not included:

Answer: Include or Not Include

-- GreenC 06:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • 1. Include 2. Not Include. Rationale: Based on DEFINE, it appears the sources discuss the father's Jewish ethnicity but not the mothers, she is discussed in relation to the Kennedy heritage which is already categorized. Categories don't determine a person's total ethnicity mix and history, that article states what his background is. -- GreenC 06:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Not include - category for father should be simply "American people of Ukrainian descent". As I previously explained, religion is separate from one's ethnicity/race/heritage. Some Wikipedians say otherwise, but Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany by historian John Weiss discusses how blood tests proved that religion is a separate characteristic from one's ancestry. Weiss writes "The Nazis had researchers working through the war analyzing Jewish blood to try to see what was Jewish about it," and "They were determined to find something different". In the end, they found nothing different after numerous tests. While one often takes on the religion his/her parents observed, it would be misleading (and vague) to say he/she is of "*insert religion* descent". Take for example a child of a Muslim father from Iraq and a Hindu mother from India. The child would be of Iraqi and Indian descent, not of Muslim descent or Hindu descent. Same applies for any other ethnic groups and religions one can think of. Therefore, father Ed's ethnicity is simply Ukrainian. I think the confusion lies within the prevalence of religion within cultures, and how culture is often mistaken for ethnicity/race/heritage. There are religious cultures/societies, but no religious ethnicities.
2. Include - At bare minimum, Irish descent category should be included given how the Kennedys are a prominent Irish American family. When every other Kennedy family member (not counting in-laws) has the "American people of Irish descent" category, there's no reason not to include it here. Leaving these categories out is essentially like discrediting mother Caroline's ethnic background, particularly that of grandmother Jackie. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include both 1 and 2 - categories exist to assist navigation for our readers. Clearly his mother's descent is as valid to include as his father's, and the additional categories provide people with information and connections to others. No reasonable argument against including all of these. Tvoz/talk 07:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Include - religion is Not separate from one's ethnicity/race/heritage. You can't use one book as a refrence to support claims you like and discard others that don't support your opinion. Wikipedia states: Jews are are a nation and ethnoreligious group. That is based on 5 sources, including books.
2. Not Include - it already covered by Kennedy and Bouvier family category. --SadarMoritz (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Include, 2. not include, per my explanation above. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Include 2. Not Include per SadarMoritz. Better to have a specific category where possible. AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean it's useless. Most information has some use. It's a question of what are you going to raise to the category level and say "We have selected out just a few things about this person that are really defining so that you can search on them, and here's one of them"? Herostratus (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Not Include. 2. Not Include. WP:DEFINING says that "[o]ne of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics", and includes this handy rule-of-thumb, which I think applies here: "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining." His ethnic/religious descents aren't notable or defining enough to be mentioned in the lead (let alone the rest of the article), so it doesn't make sense to categorize the article with them. Ca2james (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; his descent is currently mentioned in the article. Ca2james (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions[edit]

@SadarMoritz: it has nothing to with "liking" or "not liking" claims. I provided a the name of book reference and quotes from the book, you have not provided the names of any book references to support your claim. Also, see this. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I fail to see any reason not to include categories for Caroline's ethnicity. It's not WP:UNDUE and certainly not over-categorization to at least include "Irish descent" category given the how the Kennedys are well known for their Irish heritage. Not including that is basically like saying he isn't a Kennedy. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Shalom11111: if you dispute the book, that's one thing, but so far there have not been any reliable sources (Wikipedia articles and readings that mirror Wikipedia cannot be used per this and WP:MIRROR) provided that dispute the book I named. Irish is certainly not a "small part" of his blood given how mother Caroline is ethnically 3/4 (75%) Irish. There are Jewish cultures, but no Jewish ethnicities. This is because, as I've indicated, religion is separate from ethnicity/race/heritage. Culture refers to lifestyle, and culture is often mistaken for ethnicity/race/heritage due to certain cultures being prominent in certain regions. Therefore, the idea of "*insert religion* descent/ancestry" is a rather misleading concept. Do all who observe Judaism within a certain region share common ethnic background? Perhaps, but certainly not globally. For example, a full-blooded Mexican man who observes Judaism has no common ethnic background at all with a full-blooded Swiss man who observes Judaism, and not with a full-blooded Korean man who observes Judaism either. The idea of "*insert religion* descent" is misleading because it also neglects those who convert to said religion that had no common ethnic background with the original observers of that religion (if those original observers all shared common ethnic background). One could argue that the original observers of Judaism all shared common ethnic background, but definitely not all who have ever observed Judaism. There are many Jews who have no common ethnic background with one another. Same applies for any other religion one can think of. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply, XXSNUGGUMSXX. First, it does not matter what the Kennedys are known for, but John's background and Wikipedia's categorization guidelines do. For this matter, if his mother is 75% Irish, and his father is 0% Irish, that means he's 37.5% Irish. I guess it's on a blurry line, you guys could decide whether to include this category or not. His father is 100% Jewish by descent so John is 50% Jewish by descent. Saying "There are Jewish cultures, but no Jewish ethnicities" is a major (wrong) statement that potentially has very dangerous implications. Not all of today's Jews are "ethnic Jews", but there surely are Jewish ethnicities. Look no further than the article Jews. A person can be ethnically/racially Jewish but be an atheist at the same time, while another person may have no Jewish blood but simply be a Jewish convert, and practice Judaism. It's an important fact to acknowledge. You made a good point with the examples of people of different backgrounds practicing Judaism, to which I say: If reliable sources identify the person/his parents as Jews (and do not state that they're converts), then he/she is a person Jewish descent and as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As opposed to other religions, such as Christianity and Islam, a Jew can be both a person who practices Judaism (probably not John's case), or a person whose parents are said to be Jewish, in which case he'll be of Jewish descent (ancestry), as John is, and thus the category. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again: Wikipedia pages cannot be used as references for claims, and neither can pages identical/nearly identical to Wikipedia articles (guidelines, essays, and policies are not articles) per WP:MIRROR. Rather than "100% Jewish", Ed's ethnicity is 100% Ukrainian. His religion simply happens to be Judaism. Sorry to say this, but if material from Wikipedia articles are one's only basis for arguments, then the argument is not going to be seen as having much (if any) merit. All professional and academic institutions would quickly dismiss any material in research projects used from Wikipedia as poorly sourced. Many students have failed papers simply because they used Wikipedia as a reference. Trust me, I used Wikipedia as a reference many times for school projects and my teachers were quick to emphasize that it was not an acceptable source. As for the differences between culture and ethnicity, maybe this is a better explanation:
  • Culture – A lifestyle one lives by. Synonymous with society.
  • Ethnicity – One's ancestral background. Synonymous with heritage.
An example of how something can be a culture and not an ethnicity: American societies and Canada societies both have lifestyles different than other countries, but both have countless immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) with such diverse ethnic roots that one cannot say "American descent" or "Canadian descent" unless referring to Native Americans or Native Canadians, as the natives were the only "real Americans" and "real Canadians", so to speak.
As for "Jewish blood", the book I provided states that Nazis did numerous blood tests on Jews to find "what was Jewish about it" and that the tests concluded that there was nothing different in the Jews' blood, indicating "ethnic Jews" is as misleading of a concept as "ethnic Christians", "ethnic Muslims", "ethnic Buddhists", "ethnic Hindus", etc. Because of those tests, the idea of a "Jewish descent" category is misleading and, as I stated, many Jews have no common ethnic roots with one another. I've heard of people identifying themselves religiously as "half Jewish" if one parent observes Judaism, but that states nothing about the ethnic background of said parent.
Another problem with the idea of "ethnic religion" is that it doesn't indicate anything about where the georgraphical origins would be. In this specific case, "Ukrainian-Jewish descent" is misleading since it (incorrectly) suggests either ethnic Ukrainians are all Jewish or that perhaps full-blooded Ukrainians who observe Judaism are ethnically different than full-blooded Ukrainians who do not observe Judaism. Even if the original observers of Judaism all had common ethnic background, so many of the people who have ever observed Judaism are either converts or descendants of converts who had no common ethnic background with the original observers of Judaism. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since categorization is objective and not subjective, if you are suggesting inclusion, please indicate how your recommendation is objective. Is it based on the number of generations removed from the country and if so do we stop at 1 or 100? Is it based on the percentage of blood from a country and if so what percent is defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, adding mother's ethnic categories is completely objective. It doesn't give off any non-neutral connotation at all, unlike things such as "Mexican American scumbags" or "Mexican American supreme winners". Seeing to it that Jack Schlossberg is easily best known for his affiliations with the Kennedy family, not including "Irish descent" category is like saying he has no connection to the family. No question Irish descent category should be included. The Bouviers are also a well-known French American family, no harm in including French descent category. While Caroline is 75% Irish with the remaining 25% being a combination of French, Scottish, and English (Caroline's mother Jackie being 50% Irish and her French, Scottish, English roots to talking up to the other 50%). While not as widely known as a Bouvier, I see no reason to discredit Jackie's heritage. Only having a category for Ukranian descent would give the misleading impression that nothing else is known about his ethnic roots. I could possibly understand not including Scottish and English (if any are to be excluded), though Irish should be included without question, and French probably should also be included. I don't think there's any limit as to how far back one should trace roots as long as it is verified by reliable sources that at some point they had roots from there. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: the problem is that this "specific" category is misleading for the reasons I gave to Shalom11111. Also, not listing Irish descent category when he's easily best known for being a Kennedy (which is a well-known Irish American family) is essentially saying he's not part of the family. Not including Scottish or English, I could perhaps understand. French I would argue should be included since the Bouviers are a well-known French American family, Irish I feel even more strongly should be included. Why take away what he's easily best known as? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the Kennedy cat already cover that. The categories are navigation aides and if you start adding too many that becomes counter intuitive. AIRcorn (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it really doesn't, especially since many of the Kennedy in-laws have no Irish ancestry at all. Likewise, many of the Bouvier in-laws (including JFK) have no French ancestry at all. Adding categories for Caroline's ethnicity is certainly not over-categorization or WP:UNDUE or anything. Only having Ukrainian descent category gives the misleading impression that his ancestry is fully Ukrainian. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the discussion came to an end, but I just want to say a few words. XXSNUGGUMSXX, a person can be 100% of Ukrainian descent and that won't contradict the possibility that they'll also be 100% Jewish, and 100% American. These do not necessarily contradict. And of course Wikipedia is not a source for an argument, and when I said you could read the articles on Jews and Jewish ethnic groups it was simply an on-the-way suggestion, since this subject is too obvious to be explained, and this isn't a genetics discussion. I have to say that the thesis of this book you provided surprises me for a number of reasons. Anyway, Wikipedia has the Category:People of Jewish descent which currently lists thousands of people just like John, so you cannot change the "rules of the game" using the conclusion of that book, as that would clearly be WP:OR. A much longer process would be needed to change the way we categorize such people. And there's no problem with the idea of "ethnic religion" in this case, as Jews are an ethnoreligious group. In that sense, Jews are a very unique group, and your confusion about this whole thing is therefore very understandable. XXSNUGGUMSXX as a side-note I wouldn't be surprised if you yourself are Irish, because you insist on adding the Irish category simply on the basis that it's strongly affiliated with the Kennedy family. As I've explained, it does not matter what the Kennedys are known for, but John's background and Wikipedia's categorization guidelines do. Not including the "Irish descent" category is not like saying he has no connection to the Kennedy family, that's twisted logic. Also, from an objective perspective, the French category should definitely not be included. Of course "it would do not harm" if we included it, but it would also do no harm if we followed the guidelines regarding this. John himself is not known for any of those European categories whose inclusion you're arguing for, and you'd rarely find people with that many ethnic categories on their Wikipedia article. I'm surprised you still say adding all of these categories is not WP:UNDUE or over categorization, but given your concern about the Ukrainian-Jewish category which you think is misleading, I've changed it to "American people of Jewish descent‎". Regards Shalom11111 (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That category would be just as misleading. One cannot be of "*insert religion* descent" since so many people of any religion you can think of (including Judaism) share no common ethnic background whatsoever. This also has nothing to do with my own background. Saying "we have _____ category" is another instance of using Wikipedia as a reference. Seeing to it that he's best known as a Kennedy, you'd be mistaken in saying he's not known for being Irish. If I made a claim on here without providing a reference, THAT would be original research. However, this is certainly not the case since I provided the book as my reference. There is nothing I can find in guidelines that would suggest not including the categories I would use. I've also seen a number of articles with 4+ ethnic categories (mother Caroline and grandmother Jackie themselves being examples). As for being "100%" American, that would only be one's nationality. Being "100% Jewish" would simply refer to one's religious beliefs. Ethnically (by heritage), father Ed is 100% Ukrainian. He simply happens to have American citizenship and observe Judaism. Ethnicity = Heritage = Genetics = Ancestry = Bloodline. Wikipedia articles (I should've mentioned that these include category pages though not policies, essays, and guidelines) are not considered reliable sources themselves under any circumstance despite whatever references they contain, and neither are writings that copy or are similar to Wikipedia pages per WP:MIRROR. Further reading on why we can't use such pages, including category pages, as references for anything:

XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus you do have some very good points. He isn't really known for being Ukrainian, or for any religious affiliations. After all, there isn't any current evidence that indicates he observes any specific religion these days (a point which Beyond My Ken brought up). While the Kennedys are known as an Irish Catholic family, mother Caroline's cousin Christopher Kennedy Lawford stopped observing religion as a teenager. Jack isn't known for professing his religious or ethnic background, either, unlike JFK and JFK's mother Rose. He's really only known for being Caroline's son. Even though he is JFK and Jackie's only grandson, seems trivial to state in article "he is the only living male descendant" of them. If he becomes the last living descendant, that would be another story. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being the only male descendent through the mother's lineage is trivial, since the name (Kennedy) will not be carried on by him. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections, I'm going to remove that bit altogether. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
XXSNUGGUMSXX, I did not use Wikipedia as a references, as there are sources in the article which say his father as Jewish. Thefore, as far as the current Wikipedia categorization method is concerned, the (Ukranian/or not)Jewish descent category is absolutely applicable for John, and you cannot change this now even if you believe it's possible his father is possibly a descendant of a covert. Which is why your book cannot be used as a reference here. As this JVL source says, "there are those who may have been ethnically part of the original group who are no longer part of Judaism". What do you not understand about Jews being an ethnicity? "Jewish" can also be regarded as an ethnic concept [1], so please do not change the "rules" using that single book source, because the Jewish ethnicity category would've been empty according to you. If John were to actually observe Judaism, then the Category:American Jews would have been appropriate one here. Anyway, Jack does not have to be known for "professing his religious or ethnic background" for an X category to to be inlcuded. That statement of yours is not policy based as there's no such rule. Anyway, if you want to add the Iris category, then go ahead, I'll personally not object though it's quite disputed. Shalom11111 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood those sources in the article, they indicate Ed is of Ukrainian descent and is religiously Jewish. This time you did provide sources, though. However, you've overlooked how the first link you provided states "Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more" due to the diverse ethnic background Jews have today (though it states that the first Jews all shared common ethnic background) and "If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation", and also how the second link you provided states "There are Jews of almost every background including Jews of African descent, Indian descent, European descent, Middle Eastern descent, Southeast Asian descent, and Hispanic descent" and "Most Jews object to describing Jews as a racial group". It is true that one does not have to be known for something (or professing it) for a category to be included, but Herostratus states it is too trivial to include in this case. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How is...[edit]

...being a student not an occupation? If you have to fill out a form that has a field for "occupation" (income tax forms have this field for instance) and you're a full-time student, what are you supposed to do? Write "none" or leave it blank? Or if you have five hours a week work-study in the cafeteria, would you write "cafeteria worker"? That would be misleading I think. I'd put in "student" and I don't see what's wrong with that. Herostratus (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because one never gets paid for being a student as it is not a job or anything. It's probably best to leave the "occupation" field in the infobox blank for now since his writing "career" isn't noteworthy as of yet. As for tax forms, I'd imagine someone unemployed (student or not) would write "none" or "N/A" or "unemployed" or, for late adulthood, "retired" in that field. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What has getting paid got to do with anything? There are lots of people who don't get their main income, or any income, from what they spend most of their time doing and/or are notable for. Wallace Stevens's article does not begin "Wallace Stevens was an American business executive". "Jerry Rubin was an American social activist, anti-war leader, and counterculture icon..." Was any of that a job? Was he hired by somebody and paid for being a counterculture icon? Your occupation is what you spend your time doing, and secondarily what you're notable for. If you're a full-time student and you write "unemployed" or "none" on official forms, I suggest you stop doing that, since it's not true. Being a full-time student is an actual, real thing and it's not the same as doing nothing or being unemployed. If it was me I'd fill in the "occupation" field in the infobox, but it doesn't much matter since that's not his source of notabily so leaving it blank is OK too.
No, he's definitely not noted for being a student regardless of institution. As for activism, that often gets pay from endorsements of what they advocate for. Many do get hired for it, though others don't. While there is volunteer work, one never gets hired to be a student. Personally, I was never able to take parents/teachers seriously when they said "being a student is a full-time job", and was all "then why am I not getting paid for it?". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harumph, that's what I say: harumph. Herostratus (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what is he?[edit]

"John Schlossberg is ________". Well what goes in the blank. As far as his occupation, what he spends most of his time and energy doing, he's a student. As far as what he's notable for, he's Caroline Kennedy's son. He's not a writer and it's ridiculous to imply to the reader "Here's an article about a notable American writer." Let's not do that. He writes for the The Yale Herald, which is a free giveaway paper with a circulation of 3,000 run by college students, and the Yale Daily News, which is also a free giveaway paper run by students (don't know the circulation). In one sense this is a step down from the free circulars with the real estate listings and restaurant coupons they have at the grocery store (at least those have a business purpose and are run by adults). In other senses it's a step up; but I bet we don't (and wouldn't) have articles on even the head editors of those papers, let alone staff writers, if that's their main claim to notability. (The ref for this says "writes for the Yale Daily News and The Yale Herald" and that's all it says.) And he wrote a letter to the editor of the NY Times. Sheesh.

He's not notable for being a student although that's what he mostly does. He is notable because he's Caroline's son, period. So we need to lead to with that. His situation is entirely similar to Hisako, Princess Takamado or Princess Olga, Duchess of Apulia or Prince Frederick of Hesse-Kassel or any of zillion other people who are notable because of, and only because of, their birth. These articles generally begin along the lines of either "Throckmorton Bornrich is the son of..." or "Throckmorton Bornrich is a member of the Bornrich family...". Either will do here. The Kennedy's are not a noble family so my inclination is to go with "...son of Caroline Kennedy" and that's what I've done. Herostratus (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, what he is notable for is extremely controversial and has been the subject of 3 AfDs and 2 DRVs involving dozens of people none of whom can reach a consensus. Not sure why you have unilaterally decided on your own what he is notable (or not) for. Are you getting ready for AfD number 4? I can't wait to notify the dozens of people who participated in the previous ones, no doubt everyone will be filled with joy to rehash the same tired arguments over again just weeks after the last closure. Regardless, Schlossberg is a published writer which is discussed in the article, per WP:LEAD it should be in the lead section, in fact the lead section should be a lot longer than current we should be adding material not removing. -- GreenC 05:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, it would go against WP:CANVAS to try and get people to save/delete an article. In short, here's why he fails notability: none of the sources he gets significant coverage from are reliable third-party sources. NY Post is a tabloid (thus unreliable to begin with). IrishCentral is an interview thus not third-party, therefore that doesn't count even though it is a reliable source. The rest of the reliable sources on him only mention him briefly. He isn't primarily known for being a writer as Herostratus has mentioned. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm sorry, not familiar with those AfD's and DRV's and stuff. AfD's (and DRV's) revolve around the question of whether he is notable, which is an entirely different question than what he is notable for. Though I don't really have an opinion on whether he's Wiki-notable, I assume that he probably is because 1) the article exists, and 2) he's famous, to an extent (which is not exactly the same as Wikipedia notability, but pretty close) and 3) there are there a number of cites to fairly notable publications. Fine, no problem. I don't have a dog in the fight of whether he's notable or not and am coming clean to the article.
So fine, he's a notable American person. But he's not a notable American writer, in the sense that David Foster Wallace or whomever is a notable American writer, and it's a disservice to the reader to open with that. I mean, Barack Obama plays basketball, but his article does not begin "Barack Obama is an American basketball player" even though it's true, in a narrow literal sense. Same deal here. Assume that a reader is coming here to answer the question "Who is this person?" How do we answer that question? How do we help the reader? That's what we're here for.
Oh, OK, I see there was some conflict over his notability. Sorry to stir that up. No I don't think it would be a good idea to rehash that. Let it lie. He's famous enough. There's plenty of other important Wiki-work to do. Just, I'm sure no one has raised the point that he's notable as a writer and, purely on the strength of his writing career would pass WP:AUTHOR and rate an article just on that. So I don't think changing the lede should be controversial. Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Reading the previous deletion discussions would take some time. I do believe the lead should follow the lead of WP:LEAD (or lede) .. that is, be a mini-version of the article, which would include his writing activity. That doesn't mean he is singularly notable as a writer, this is a case where his notability is a patchwork of multiple things. It's really a question of how to best write the lead to be inclusive of the main article, not that the previous version was the best way. -- GreenC 06:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's reasonable. The lede is short, so I personally wouldn't object so something like "... He is an undergraduate student at Yale University, where he writes for the student newspapers". I don't think it's necessary, but it'd be OK. Before getting too much into his writing career, I'd like to know more about it. All we have now is the bare assertion "writes for the Yale Daily News and The Yale Herald". Is he is on staff or does he just submit stuff (or does the concept of "on staff" even apply to these papers), and what does he do -- opinion pieces, or hard news (I can see from Yale Daily News that they do daily news reporting), or what? They don't seem to have a search function, but maybe someone can provide links to some of his work? This would be useful, to provide examples for the reader and so we could expand a bit by saying "...is a reporter for..." or "...is a columnist for..." (or both, or whatever).
FWIW, "He also posts opinion pages for the New York Times" isn't really true. He wrote one letter (not multiple). But he does have a CNN byline. I'm going to change the sentence to "He has had byliness at the New York Times and CNN". (It's stretching it somewhat to say he had Times byline, it was just a letter that got printed, albeit in the opinion space rather than the letters-to-the-editor space... but it was opinion space, so IMO it's a reasonable stretch, I guess; if someone disagrees they're welcome to revert.) Herostratus (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Additional thought) Unless the Opinion space is where they publish all letters to the editor. If Joe Blow wrote to the Times and they wanted to publish the letter, and if it would go in the same space and format as Shlossberg's letter, then it's not legit to mention it any more than a forum post would be, really. (There are rare exceptions, e.g see Press-Telegram, 3rd paragraph.) In which case the sentence could be changed to "He has also had a byline at CNN" or maybe deleted. I don't know what the deal is, so I'm leaving it. Herostratus (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lone grandson[edit]

The question is whether the following passage should be in. Right now its at the end of the "Early life and family section":

As the lone grandson of President Kennedy and the First Lady, Schlossberg became the only surviving male descendant of JFK's immediate family when his uncle, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr. (1960–1999), died childless in a plane crash on July 16, 1999.[4]

User:XXSNUGGUMSXX doesn't like the passage ("Even though he is JFK and Jackie's only grandson, it seems trivial to state in article "he is the only living male descendant" of them. If he becomes the last living descendant, that would be another story") and neither does User:Winkelvi ("Being the only male descendent through the mother's lineage is trivial, since the name (Kennedy) will not be carried on by him"). That's reasonable, but here's my take on the matter.

(N.B.: By "Wiki-notable" I mean basically "enough people have written about you in enough detail in sufficiently notable publications that you pass WP:BIO". You can sit around in your underpants all day and if, for some inexplicable reasons, enough people want to write about you, you're Wiki-notable; conversely many extremely accomplished and (covertly) influential people are not Wiki-notable because they're not noticed by the press or historians.)

OK. There are a zillon ways to categorize our biographies, but one way, which I think would cover very near to 100% of our biographies, is:

  1. People who are Wiki-notable because they did something notable, or had something notable happen to them, or participated in some way in some notable event, and that sort of thing; or essentially because they're married to a notable person -- Olivia Harrison, Mary Anna Custis Lee, that sort of person. (Obviously the vast majority or our biographies are in this category.)
  2. People who are Wiki-notable only because they are nobility or royalty.
  3. People who are Wiki-notable only because they are heirs to a great fortune or scions of a famous family, but are not actually nobility or royalty.

(It's a little tricky because while some #2's and #3's just go to parties, most will sit on the occasional museum board and whatnot in a desultory way and get written up for that, so the line is arguable. But to this point Schlossberg's a pure #3.)

My contention is that #2's and #3's are very similar, and quite different from #1's. Prince Rupert of Teck, Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine (1933–1937), Princess Thyra of Denmark, yadda yadda -- there are thousands of these articles. Really all that matters is who they're related to and how and what title they inherited and when, and the bulk of these articles is taken up with that stuff, including where in the line of succession to Duke of Outer East Blackacre they are or were.

Republics don't have nobility but the Kennedys and other families fill much the same niche in popular imagination, and it says here that it's reasonable to write about them in much the same way. If you accept my argument, then that Schlossberg is the eldest male heir to the JFK line of of the Kennedys, notwithstanding that technically we don't have actual inherited titles, is quite important. (Apologies for the wall of text, which doesn't give my argument any more weight than the more succinct ones; right now it's 2-1 in favor of deleting the text, I'd say let's see if we can get one more opinion to see which way the wind really blows.) Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your premise. Schlossberg is notable because of who his parents and his grandparents are, hence the article about him. Being the only male descendent of Jack Kennedy doesn't make him notable, being a Kennedy descendent does. And no, I don't see how being the only living male descendent of JFK is important since the Kennedy family isn't royalty. If we were in a European country where royalty is actual, I could see it. If we were in a completely patriarchal society, I could see it. Neither is true, so the importance is only trivia. A good question for Jeopardy! but not an important piece of information for an encyclopedia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Winkelvi said, he's only noted for being Caroline's son, and grandson of JFK and Jackie. Because of this and how none of the sources written on him are reliable third-party sources, he in actuality fails notability per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The Kennedy's are not a royal family even though they are of fully European descent and have been dubbed "America's Royal family" by the press. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that the large number of sources and their coverage of John make him a notable enough celebrity to warrant an article on Wikipedia. And yes, being (somewhat) a writer and a family member of the famous Kennedies in addition to that, does help establish that notability even more. Shalom11111 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is many of those sources aren't reliable and/or aren't third-party. Definitely not a celebrity. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nom. Herostratus brings up good points. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Jack Schlossberg → Jack Kennedy Schlossberg – I want to give a background on why I am request this move in the first place. The original name of the page was "John Schlossberg", however, most reliable sources state that the young man and grandson of John F. Kennedy goes by "Jack" instead of his birth name of John. He also goes by Jack Schlossberg on Twitter. So there is no question whether we should name it John or Jack. It is whether we should name the article Jack Kennedy Schlossberg, which I am proposing (instead of doing a WP:BOLD move because it may be controversial). I believe it would be better to name it Jack Kennedy Schlossberg, even though he himself does not go by Kennedy, is because it is WP:COMMONNAME, which many reliable sources state him as Jack Kennedy Schlossberg (see [2][3][4][5][6][7]). Most of his fame comes from being the only grandson of John F. Kennedy and a heir of the family, anyway. That is why I propose moving it to Jack Kennedy Schlossberg. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 21:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment When looking at sources we should look at the source title, which mirrors our article title. The body of the source will always provide the full 3-word name (just as we do) but that's different from the requirements of a title for easy recognition. Looking at the 6 sources you linked, nydailynews.com and today.com use the two word form. people.com uses the 3 word form. The other 3 have neither. The situation is pretty ambiguous. But I could see the argument about including "Kennedy" for reasons of increased recognition, though Jack is notable in the technical sense on his own merits (see the nine AfD discussions for debates on that). Doesn't matter to me either way at this point. -- GreenC 14:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do have a good point. I thought that Kennedy would be appropriate, because many sources use Jack Kennedy Schlossberg and because his notability partly stems from being the only grandson of John F. Kennedy. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 16:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sources in the article favor just "Jack Schlossberg." Given that the subject himself apparently also favors this formulation, I don't feel like we should impose a different version on the article. He's a living person, not a plant. Calidum ¤ 20:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Calidum is making the point that respect for living persons (see WP:BLP means we ought to give special consideration to the subject's preferences for how they are called (in the unneccessarily hatted section below, he expands on this with "[W]e consider a living person's preferences when it comes to the name of his article. In this case, it's pretty clear that even if "Jack Schlossberg" weren't the common name, we should defer to it because he prefers it.") I don't agree, and in fact subjects often enough have idiosyncratic name preferences that we ignore. Anyway, if you accept User:Calidum's argument, I note that here in a 2016 article he signs with the byline "Jack Kennedy Schlossberg". (My personal belief is that he did this as a shorthand way to quickly communicate "I'm related to the subject of this article so I have special standing" -- but who knows, and he did sign it that way.) Herostratus (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment Calidum He's a living person, not a plant. And... exactly what are you trying to prove? That's insulting to me. Sorry, but I know he is a living person. Are you grumpy tonight? Take a wikibreak, please, if you have comments like that to say to my face. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 02:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment means that unlike basically any other subject most subjects covered on Wikipedia, we consider a living person's preferences when it comes to the name of his article. In this case, it's pretty clear that even if "Jack Schlossberg" weren't the common name, we should defer to it because he prefers it. The idea that we should impose a different name because he's famous for being a Kennedy is not supported by any of our guidelines or policies for article names, and I suggest you take a Wikibreak if you consider that a serious reason for moving the page. "Jack Schlossberg" meets all the criteria laid out at WP:AT. Calidum ¤ 03:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not getting anywhere. I don't have a problem with you opposing, but the comment was rude, but you don't really give rats *** about it. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 04:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:CookieMonster755 you are being far too thin skinned, the person was just using sporty language to drive home a valid point. I would recommend in future that you don't hat stuff for trivial reasons (it confuses the thread), don't get into unnecessary pissing contests, and don't say "I don't give ratshit about your comment" to your colleagues, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not being thin skinned. I thought the comment was tasteless. I was upset, so I just collapsed the column. Thanks for your advise, as I am sure you ran into this all the time as a former admin. I don't give ratshit about your comment you are putting words in my mouth, and that is not what I said at all, but that's okay. I will let your comment slide. Just so that I don't get into wiki drama. Have a nice day. Oh, and I am withdrawing this request. Valid points, despite your above comment. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The first calls him "Jack Schlossberg" upon introduction in the headline (the body text does use "Jack Kennedy Schlossberg" the first time).
  2. The second uses "Jack Kennedy Schlossberg" throughout.
  3. The third is an article by Schlossberg, and he gives his byline as "Jack Kennedy Schlossberg". I wouldn't put much more emphasis on this than other example just because its how the subject himself characterizes himself.
  4. The fourth introduces him in the title as "John 'Jack' Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg" which is a bit of a mouthful and really just shorthand for "Jack-Schlossberg-who-is-a-Kennedy-and-a-Bouvier", then uses "Jack Schlosberg" in the text.
  5. The fifth introduces him in the title as "Jack Schlossberg" and uses that in the text also.
  6. The sixth introduces him in the text as "Jack Kennedy Schlossberg".
So I dunno. Discarding "John 'Jack' Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg" since we are not contemplating moving the article to that (I hope), we have a examples just 3-2 in favor of "Jack Kennedy Schlossberg"... and that's of examples picked by the person suggesting the move. And that's if you count the guy using it in his byline, which I'm not sure if we should.
I really think that a lot of uses in media of "Jack Kennedy Schlossberg" is more in the manner of saying "Jack-Schlossberg-who-is-a-Kennedy" in shorthand. Its not the name he goes by generally. And even then the media is split 50-50.
So let's think about the Five Virtues of WP:Article titles. Conciseness clearly favors "Jack Schlossberg". However, Recognizability might favor "Jack Kennedy Schlossberg" though. The remaining three Virtues (Nauturalness, Precision, Consistency) probably a wash I guess. IMO the only guidance from WP:AT that clearly applies is that Conciseness clearly favors "Jack Schlossberg", so IMO WP:AT leans at least a little in the direction of "Jack Schlossberg". Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why?[edit]

Unproductive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is there an article on this guy? He's nobody. (165.120.184.247 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

165.120.184.247, Please read the 9 AfD nominations. It has been established that this young man is notable and passes WP:GNG. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is he notable for? (165.120.184.247 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
He said, "read the 9 AfD nominations". -- GreenC 17:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to have articles on everyone who had a famous grandfather 50 years ago? (165.120.184.247 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
165.120.184.247, if you read the 9 AfD nominations, you will see why there is evidence for him passing WP:GNG without the help of his grandfather, John F. Kennedy. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Whatever the past history of this article may be, as of January 2018, it remains unclear why the subject of this article is notable enough to qualify for an article. Park3r (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 7 AfDs and 2 DRVs which explain in 100s of thousands of words why the community has not deleted this article. -- GreenC 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever those 100s of thousands of words may be, they are plainly wrong. There is no reason to keep this article up except for Kennedy-worship and white privilege, neither of which is a reason to violate the notability guidelines. This may as well be the guy’s facebook. TopDomino (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy-worship and white privilege it's true a lot of people are Kennedy haters which has been underpinning much of the AfD activity around this article. -- GreenC 20:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth[edit]

The DoB haa been January 19 for a long time without controversy. Today, an editor User:Erin20082026 changed it to the January 23 with the following edit summary: On his moms Instagram https://www.instagram.com/amb_kennedy/ she made a post https://www.instagram.com/p/BPng0LXj4yv/ saying "happy birthday to my handsome son" on Jan 23. I reverted with the following: i can find no other source that say 23, but many say 19. Sometimes people wish birthdays after the fact. This was then counter-reverted by Erin with the same comment. Couple points:

  1. Instagram is not a reliable source and can't be used on Wikipedia. Even if it's true, it's not a usable source. Another reliable source would need to be found.
  2. The assertion that a post made on the 23rd means his birthday is also on the day doesn't make sense. Every year, people wish me happy birthday on facebook days after the fact. True it's his mother, but family often do that to keep the party/spotlight going. IOW, there are other reasonable explanations why the post was made on the 23rd. It is WP:OR Original Research using a WP:PRIMARY source.
  3. A Google search finds some supporting evidence for the 19th but nothing clearly free of Wikipedia influence. I can find zero sources for the 23rd.
  4. This article is a WP:BLP and has special rules about personal information. I'm considering removing any mention of the birthdate without a reliable source.

Erin20082026, address these points, or added reliable sources, or the dates (19 and 23) will be removed entirely. -- GreenC 03:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overdetail[edit]

Per WP:BRD, coming to discuss on talk with @GreenC and any others interested. I removed the content because it's overdetailed and unnecessary, not because I'm a "Kennedy hater". Nor am I trying to "destroy the article" or get it deleted. I have no quibbles with Schlossberg's notability.

However, I do think that this article doesn't need to include trivial mentions of Schlossberg. What value does the "Public appearances" section add? Why would any article need such a section? Whether for a politician, actor, attorney, or just any old person, "Public appearances" are nothing special. Why is his decade-old teenage comment that he wants to be in politics relevant? If he said he wanted to be a firefighter when he was 19, would that be in here? This shouldn't read like a resume for a politician-in-waiting, in anticipation of some future political career that has not yet materialized. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you removed everything in the public appearances section, not based on a careful point by point consideration of every source and fact there, but because you don't like the idea of a public appearances section. You made no effort to incorporate that section into the article elsewhere or really anything to WP:PRESERVE the content (policy). So if you want to start deleting sentences and sources, let's go through them, one by one, and not these mass-deletions of whole sections. Just because someone separated that content out into its own section (clumping and splitting) doesn't negate it.
Why is his comment that he wants to be in politics notable? That's a remarkable thing to say when you consider his grandfather was one of the top 5 most famous/important presidents in American history. And notability of his comment does not expire, and that is the last time he made such a comment about his future political plans, and people often follow their teenage dreams, and his current education path is typical of those who want to become politicians (History->Law).
I don't know why you think this article is a "resume of a politician in waiting". That's a very negative and subjective view. He is in fact positioning himself to be in politics, doing all the "right things", being the right places with the "right people", and the press is watching this and covering it, which is why he is so notable to this point - everyone wants to know, will JFKs grandson be our next President or Senator or whatever, that is why he gets so much coverage, and as a result, why Wikipedia covers him in turn. We are following what the sources are doing. You probably think Wikipedia is complicit in promoting him, but that's really not the case, we reporting what the sources say and consider important. -- GreenC 14:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that I kept the DNC speech from the 'Public appearances' section, as that seemed significant enough for inclusion. You're correct that I don't think a 'Public appearances' section adds anything of value to the article. Whether or not you think JFK was a top 5 president or not, his grandson's comments at age 19 are simply not very important. If he ends up becoming a prominent politician, it might be a fun bit of trivia, but that's ultimately what it is; trivial. Again, if he had said he wanted to be a firefighter, would that be here? We should not retain material in anticipation of his possible future political plans, which are ultimately unknowable.
I don't understand the logic of your third paragraph. You deny that this article seems like a "resume of a politician in waiting", and then describe precisely how Schlossberg is indeed a "politician in waiting". I agree that we should follow the sources, but that doesn't mean that too much detail should be included. Celebrities (which is what Schlossberg is) are covered in exceedingly trivial detail all the time, but Wikipedia articles are summaries, and as WP:NOTEVERYTHING states, not all verifiable material is worth keeping. WP:ONUS makes clear that you will need to develop consensus to include this material if you wish it to remain in the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is important, that's why people pay attention to him, a future politician, the very thing you say this article shouldn't focus on is exactly what the press is focusing on (implicitly). I don't know what country you are from but the Kennedys are the closest thing America has to royalty, Americans really do care about the idea of JFKs grandson following in his footsteps, it's not trivia or unimportant. The article is not a resume or EVERYTHING there are many things not included that might be. It does need to establish notabilty and if you look at some the most recent AfDs these sources are needed. The ONUS is on you to get consensus to delete, these sources were mostly included before or during AfDs processes and no one there said they should be deleted, and literally 100s of thousands of people have looked at this article over the many prior years, your view is unique. -- GreenC 16:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the press finds Schlossberg interesting is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we should not be making editing decisions on the basis of hypothetical future political careers. If Schlossberg ever runs for a political office, then that should and would be included. Your assumptions about what Americans think are also not relevant. As to notability, as you say, Schlossberg's underlying notability has been established a number of times. Removing this content from the article makes no difference, practically or policy-wise, as to whether Schlossberg is notable (which I agree he is).
Finally, please re-read WP:ONUS. It states: "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's very clear. This content is disputed. If you wish it to remain in the article, please achieve consensus to do so. A reasonable first step might be WP:3O, or a post at WP:BLPN. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. If he grows old and dies having done nothing else, what he has done so far is notable on its own merit. That's the litmus test for inclusion. However we also can't ignore his future prospects as a politician being a notable topic, given his direct connection to JFK and place in American history. In fact we probably should have an entire section in the article that discusses this topic since I think we both agree this is the implicit reason why the press is covering him so much, and why the public is so interested in him. Anything less is just wearing blinkers lacking common sense (WP:COMMONSENSE is policy).
2. The article itself makes no crystal ball assertions, we are having a talk page discussion to determine what to include, which is not governed by crystal or OR. We in fact make OR decisions every time we add and delete content, the talk page is to explain our rationales for editorial decisions. Your assertion "resume of a politician in waiting" is an example.
3. Consensus is already implicit as I noted above by former AfDs and how long the material has been in the article. Feel free to start a consensus discussion if you want but I don't think this long standing material already looked at by many people (some of them actually hostile to the article's existence) needs to be removed and then justified before inclusion, so many years later. Your assurance that it's removal would make no difference to future AfDs is nice, but experience has repeatedly shown we need to demonstrate as much notability as possible. Where that line is drawn is a matter of debate, but I don't think deleting entire sections is the right way to go about it. -- GreenC 18:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I split the public appearances section into more explicit sections because that term is so amorphous it's better to look at the specifics. I also created a politics section because the press has commented on it enough. Note that crystal does not apply here because "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur". -- GreenC 19:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence you added is fine. What I am not fine with is trivial detail like his mom taking him to Fukushima: "On May 5, they toured Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant wearing yellow helmets and white protective suits with their last names emblazoned on them. He said there, "I hope my peers, my generation in the United States will keep Fukushima in mind and understand that there is still work to be done and we can all do something to help.". Similarly, the fact that he shook hands with John Kerry is not important in the slightest. Now that you've made some changes, why don't I take another swing at trimming the overdetail and we can see where we end up?
Consensus is certainly not "implicit." AfDs are about overall notability, as you know, not the inclusion or exclusion of certain sentences. The fact that the material has stuck around for a while is irrelevant; there has never been a consensus established for inclusion, and the material is now in dispute. Again, WP:ONUS is crystal clear, and I will remove the material again if there is not consensus that finds otherwise. You seem to be very concerned that this article will be deleted, but repeated AfDs have established notability in the past. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and counter-edit. I think some of this has to be seen in perspective of his age, if he was a late career politician, some of it would be trivia. BTW this talk page discussion is an ongoing consensus discussion (Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion). -- GreenC 20:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

are Bouvier and Kennedy middle names or actual parts of his last name? the current placement of "Jack" seems to imply they are middle names, which should probably be cleared up somewhere considering the significance of those names. --jonas (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Schlossberg&oldid=1208898873"