Talk:Jack Schlossberg

Promotionalism

The article has the feel of promotionalism.

1. The first red flags is citation stuffing ie. adding 2 to 5 citation for a given fact. For example the paragraph listing where he has published "Schlossberg has written for..." .. those cites are doing more than verifying he wrote for a publication, it is stuffing the article with nearly everything he wrote. Why are we doing that? Furthermore do we even need to list every publication he has written for, and not just pick 3 of the most important? This is not a comprehensive CV. HuffPost says "Schlossberg has dabbled in media" .. "dabbled" .. you'd think he was a late-career veteran journalist from all those links, it's overkill. -- GreenC 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Maxen Embry:, please consider reverting your re-addition of what I've removed with regard to above user's comment. Graywalls (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

How is it promotionalism when you’re just listing the articles he has written which were widely mentioned in different independent (and even foreign language) sources (few examples below) and his op eds were actually covered by different outlets / publications? By listing, you’re just stating facts. I do admit that when writing that paragraph, I did include in the citation the links to the articles for further proof of verification but not for promotion. How would that even be one? Just restructure the paragraph. The tag for close connection and promo is overkill. But then again this doesn’t surprise me after all the very many articles for deletion requests for this one. Observed lots of pushback re this article for years.) Anyway, other print journalists do list the publications they have bylines in. Schlossberg is a writer, that is his work very much like an author has a bibliography section, a singer has a discography section, an actor has a videography section, etc.

WASHINGTON POST - “During the 2016 election he wrote left-wing op-eds for Politico and The Washington Post”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/whats-life-like-as-a-young-kennedy-now-a-mix-of-fame-obscurity-and-trauma/2019/08/06/6ecfbe94-b569-11e9-951e-de024209545d_story.html

THE ATLANTIC - “The earnest words of John F. Kennedy's grandson and namesake, John Kennedy Schlossberg, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's 18-year-old son, were published in Friday's New York Times. As a "Letter To the Editor" on Page A22.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/john-kennedy-schlossberg-defends-jfks-legacy-in-the-new-york-times/249447/

INSTYLE - “3. He's a political writer He honed his chops at Yale, where he was a writer for the university's The Yale Herald paper. Since then he has penned pieces for Time, The Washington Post, and Politico and taken resolute points of view that follow in the footsteps of his grandfather.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/jfks-only-grandson-jack-schlossberg-151511968.html

PEOPLE - “In an article for New York magazine’s The Cut, Jack Schlossberg”

https://people.com/politics/jfk-grandson-jack-schlossberg-paddleboards-manhattan-charity/

PEOPLE (again) - “Out of all his siblings, Jack has been the most public and has seemingly taken the most interest in the political space. During his freshman year at Yale, he wrote a letter to the editor of The New York Times to address his late grandfather’s legacy.” “In a 2016 essay for Politico Magazine, he condemned Sen. Ted Cruz’s suggestion that if his grandfather were alive today, he would be a Republican.”

https://people.com/all-about-caroline-kennedy-kids-7965684

HAARETZ - “At 23, he defended his grandfather’s legacy in a forceful piece in Politico in which he responded to Senator Ted Cruz’s claim that JFK wouldn’t have felt at home in today’s Democratic Party.”

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/2020-02-23/ty-article/.premium/jfks-grandson-jack-schlossberg-the-democrats-half-jewish-new-hope/0000017f-f19a-d8a1-a5ff-f19a36810000

THE WEST AUSTRALIAN “These days, when he isn’t hitting the books for Harvard’s law and business schools, Schlossberg is taking after his grandfather and penning political pieces for The Washington Post, The New York Times and Time.”

https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/us-election/john-f-kennedys-grandson-jack-schlossberg-has-thirst-traps-social-media-ng-b881644163z.am

IRISH CENTRAL - “He has also voiced his opinions on a number of issues. He wrote about the Syrian refugee crisis for Time magazine in 2016, and that same year, in Politico, he denounced Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz's self-made comparisons to President John F. Kennedy. He also wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post, urging young people to cast their vote for Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. In 2011, he wrote a letter to The New York Timescriticizing an article written about his grandfather, President John F. Kennedy.”

https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/craic/jack-schlossberg-jfk.amp

LE MONDE - “Il a ainsi écrit dans les hebdomadaires Time ou New York Magazine, dans le quotidien The Washington Post ou encore sur le site Politico. Depuis juillet, il couvre la campagne électorale pour le site Web du magazine Vogue, traditionnellement prodémocrate. Son premier article, il l’a écrit en 2011, à l’âge de 18 ans, dans le New York Times.”

Translation: “He has written for the weeklies Time and New York Magazine, the Washington Post and the Politico website. Since July, he has been covering the election campaign for the website of Vogue magazine, which is traditionally pro-Democratic. He wrote his first article in 2011, at the age of 18, for the New York Times.”

https://www.lemonde.fr/m-le-mag/article/2024/09/11/jack-schlossberg-l-unique-petit-fils-de-jfk-et-la-politique-dans-le-sang_6313180_4500055.html Maxen Embry (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no question he is frequently mentioned in the press, but do we have to include all that though? What's wrong with a few of the best publications and 1 cite each. Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive list of everything a person has done mentioned by the press. Imagine doing that for, say, Obama or Trump. It's excessive, there needs to be balance of what to include and exclude. -- GreenC 21:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm not quite… since Schlossberg is not a politician, at least not yet. The coverage is mostly apt as far as writers go. Especially since he has gotten lots of press for the articles themselves. I have no objections re trimming that paragraph down. Edit as you see fit citing the sources provided above, but there is absolutely no need to scrap everything like some editor did prior. That’s not constructive at all.

I did notice that some are trigger happy adding multiple issues template tags for the whole article not just the questionable sections. It’s not always PR, it may just be this editor’s hyperfixation of the season. Why am I getting a COI template in my talk page for some sloppy edits. LOL. But then again, why am I even surprised? The articles for deletion history of this page spoke volumes.

I digress.

Maxen Embry (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS. When there's disagreement over inclusion of something, those wishing to restore it, in this case, YOU need to establish consensus. You can't just punch in something you think should be included when it's being objected. Graywalls (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Maxen Embry Unfriendnow (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah we should say something about publications he has written for. Maybe the ONUS is pick out some of his most important pieces and cite those publications. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jack_Schlossberg&diff=prev&oldid=1247072509 -- GreenC 21:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Already removed primary sources and trimmed out named sources. Improve / edit as you see fit. Thanks. Maxen Embry (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The encyclopedic, promotional tone nature of the sentence I just removed is the issue here. Doing things like "he's written for big name1 (ref), big name2 (ref2), big name 3(ref3) is not encyclopedic. The edit you made isn't writing around the source, but fishing sources in order to try to support how you want it to read, because the sentence looks exactly the same. It shouldn't take so many sources for such a simple sentence. It reads basically the same aside from switched sources. The sentence should be directly supported by sources written in your own words without doing original research or doing close paraphrasing. Graywalls (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

As the above (several) examples have shown, they do enumerate the publications and outlets he has written for. And of course they’re enumerating the most significant / the big names. That’s not some original research on our part since they’re literally citing such and such publications. Verbatim in fact. We can actually put it in quotations. And again, we are talking about published works by the subject who is a writer. It is absolutely insensible, dishonest even, to not include where he has written for. This is like writing a page for an actor without even a mention of a film or a show they have acted in.

Recent example is from the FINANCIAL TIMES just two days ago: “He’s written for the Washington Post, New York magazine and People…” https://www.ft.com/content/0c2969d9-096e-437b-b7a9-e5191bb675a7

I noticed that you keep on throwing/ changing rationales for removing content when another editor actually counters you with independent citations / different take that solves the issue. Makes me wonder if this is still all done in good faith or something else. Oh, well. Maxen Embry (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Again I agree with @Maxen Embry. Can you please put back the previous edits he keeps deleting. Unfriendnow (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC:, do you find the amount of listicle appropriate? I feel it should be trimmed out. Graywalls (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not been following this too much, unless there is something I am not aware of, I don't see evidence of COI rather a question of WEIGHT ie. what to include and exclude. Since it says in the first sentence his career is a writer for various publications, it would be wrong not to list some of the major and most important publications he has been published, without going overboard on the number of cites. This sort of thing is standard for writer biographies. A listicle/CV would be listing every publication and/or or piece he has written (or nearly so). To puff their importance up, which is often a problem for someone so early in their career, every submission acceptance is a major career advancement, whereas later, after they've done more important things, those early pieces are hardly noticeable. -- GreenC 14:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is developed enough now we should only include things that can be cited by secondary sources. If he wrote for the Washington Post, find a source that discusses it not the Washington Post. If he is in eligible bachelor lists, find a source that discusses it that is not a list of eligible bachelors. If you can't find secondary sources, it is probably not worthy of note on Wikipedia either. -- GreenC 05:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Unfriendnow:. Please see above comment by GreenC. Graywalls (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Schlossberg and Kennedy articles in general

I am finding similar writing style problems in articles on Schlossberg people, such as using press releases and using primary sources. Instead of starting a discussion on each talk page, let's have a centralized discussion here. Graywalls (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

New Face / New Hope - citations

The article contained a stack of citations for one sentence. Citation stacking is rarely necessary. Moved half of the citations here.

-- GreenC 20:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

References

social media postings - citations

A single citation is sufficient, not this many: I think Vogue verifies it the best.

References

GreenC 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ruby Feneley commentary

@Maxen Embry:, why did you make these changes? I believe that comment was within the context of her supposition as to why he was enlisted as a political correspondent and your edits take it out of the context. I suggest we just remove that commentary from the prose entirely or restore it in contextually appropriate phrasing. @GreenC:, since you've been active on this article, I'd appreciate if you would look at it too and share your thoughts. Graywalls (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

??? I didn’t revert your change?? Another user did: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jack_Schlossberg&diff=prev&oldid=1248901533

I re-added it because I thought it was deleted entirely. Didn’t revert your deletion due to duplication.

I do agree with the other user’s edit on the placement of the quote since the writer was referencing his posts going viral prior to being named Vogue’s political correspondent (“Schlossberg started going viral in May when he switched up his posting to comedy videos promoting Joe Biden’s campaign.”).

It summarizes the In The Media section in one independent source (you’re all so adamant about) without committing original research especially since every other media piece about him mentions his family, looks, and his social media activities. It would be dishonest not to include it. Case in point, another one, from Le Figaro just two days ago: From French: “He posts often crazy videos and messages that have attracted nearly half a million fans on TikTok and Instagram. The son of artist Edwin Schlossberg and Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President John Kennedy), however, started out, like most members of the famous political dynasty, with a classic career path, studying history at Yale, then law and business management at Harvard and, finally, the bar. This tall, dark-haired man with an attractive physique has long remained discreet, but in recent months…”

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/jack-schlossberg-l-etonnant-petit-fils-de-jfk-devenu-la-coqueluche-des-reseaux-sociaux-20240930 Maxen Embry (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about the change from "presumed that Vogue enlisted him" to "commented", which specifically occurred at Special:Diff/1248879234, within the range mentioned earlier. Graywalls (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Because readability-wise, when put in the career section together with the paragraph about his Vogue job, you already have direct comments from Vogue why they hired him. No need for commentary from another magazine. And again, I also think it fits better on the In The Media section anyway as I've enumerated above. Maxen Embry (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the due weight to include the magazine writer's commentary for the sake of including it then. I say we don't have consensus to include it this point and should be removed pending discussion. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The comment was originally In the Media section but you moved it to the Career section where it lost its due weight because there is already commentary there straight from his very employers (via an independent source - NYT). Again, in the original section where it was and is at the moment, it encapsulates every media talking points about him - looks, pedigree, social media activities - reflecting the section. Maxen Embry (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire "in the media" section is in question in the first place. It's very advertisque. Graywalls (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it advertisement when not only is it a section seen across featured articles on Wikipedia but also, specifically on this page, supported by several independent reliable sources about the subject (some even relegated to the Talk section because there are so so many)?

The guy, whether you like it or not, has coverage. You yourself have (rightly) removed every press release citation on this page and yet there are still several articles and every one of them mentions his looks, his pedigree, and his social media activities. We just cannot not include that. Or are we gonna reason that these independent sources cited have conflict of interest / related to his PR team / paid to cover him?

I just don't get why you view everything in an advertising lens (as seen in your previous discussions), very specifically, very particularly on this guy... on this Kennedy... Maxen Embry (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maxen Embry:, I said this looks advertisque and GreenC mentioned this article has the feeling of promotionalism. Why did you feel the need to stack a whole bunch of references in the first place? Articles should be written around secondary sources with minimal primary source as mentioned in WP:PSTS, but using a whole bunch of sources to write something like this mostly becomes a due weight WP:NOTEVERYTHING/trivia/not news issue. For instance, if something was written based on a primary source, but with sources later added to read: So and so arrived in his new truck. <ref 1>. He bought his new truck in May 2024.<ref 2> The truck is red <ref 3>, it's still undue. There's lots of this going on in Kennedy/Schlossberg articles. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

--> I'll add that Graywalls and I don't always agree we have different views on a lot of things but sometimes editors will intentionally or unintentionally create a sort of Public Relations marketing piece on Wikipedia. There needs to be some balance. There is nothing in this article remotely controversial eg. how popular he is in the gay social media world due to his skin shots and effeminate poses - this can be sourced to a reliable second source used in the article. Or that he is not actually a lawyer despite multiple unreliable sources saying that he is. The citation stacking and heavy use of marginal sources are yellow flags. I'm OK with the media section for now, it demonstrates he is famous and popular which is a big reason why he is notable. -- GreenC 16:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC:, Special:Diff/1248879234, regarding this, how do you feel about the phrasing on calling this "commented" when the source materials says Vogue soon enlisted him as their political correspondent, presumably because he has the magic combination of political pedigree, an unnervingly chiselled face and body, and, most importantly, an aptitude for communicating complicated political messages to a terminally short-attention-span youth audience.? The magazine article authors thinks he got this job, perhaps because of those attribute. Simply saying "commented" takes it out of context in my opinion. Graywalls (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Your phrasing is a correct interpretation of the source. It's a bit convoluted to read with layers of attribution. The single word solution of "commented" attributes the quote to Ruby Feneley so there is no misattribution, but it does remove the context of Ruby presuming what Vogue was thinking. Do you think the context is significant for inclusion? -- GreenC 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather just omit the entire thing from the entire article. Graywalls (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed Ruby Feneley, writing for Marie Claire commented that he has the "magic combination of political pedigree, an unnervingly chiseled face and body, and, most importantly, an aptitude for communicating complicated political messages to a terminally short-attention-span youth audience." until consensus forms for its inclusion, and how, if at all. Since the source gave it in context of author's own speculation as to what she thinks are the reasons for Schlossberg being appointed to his position at Vogue. This is a completely useless commentary without the relevant context. Even with the context, this is verging on unencyclopedic sensationalism. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't get why it shouldn't be included? Ruby is simply explaining why he got more prominent and popular considering he was mostly out of the public eye for a few years. I have to agree with @Maxen Embry yet again. Unfriendnow (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed a change quoting Tatler (to resolve the context issue) but Graywalls blocked it from being a primary source which the article clearly is not. Even quoted it to prevent editorializing. This is not useless commentary. Especially since the internet is littered with such similar descriptions on the subject. As you stated this "demonstrates he is famous and popular which is a big reason why he is notable." Sharonstonebasicinstinct (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sharonstonebasicinstinct:, That statement is primary source, because it's the magazine's own statement in its own opinion. WP:PSTS and WP:PRIMARY explains that the same source can be primary and secondary at the same time. I agree the internet is quite littered with such description, but we're not going to have a pile of sensationalist anecdotes about what magazine article authors think as such is unencyclopaedic as we don't try to cover sensationalism on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic or you just don't like it? Of course it's an opinion! That's why it's in quotes! That's why it's attributed to the source explicitly. This is no different from including opinions like "new face of the Kennedy family" or "new hope of the Democratic Party". Omission on the media's very extensive coverage / views on his appearance, political stance, ancestry, social media are encyclopedic and should be included. Sharonstonebasicinstinct (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a secondary source, as WP:PSTS says: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The primary source in this case is Schlossberg's statements and behaviors the journalist is interpreting. -- GreenC 15:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Sharonstonebasicinstinct. Unfriendnow (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to keep saying "I agree with.." This is not a voting forum. Imagine if everyone did that. The impression is your are trying to silence or distract Graywalls through peer pressure. It's not very civil. If someone made an important point you want to emphasize, OK, but you are doing it constantly. -- GreenC 20:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear god...people can't even agree with other people's points anymore. Now I'm trying to silence or peer pressure others??? because I simply agree that the constant back and forth and nitpicking of certain things is getting a bit too much? Unfriendnow (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Your behavior on this page has been disruptive and unproductive towards achieving consensus. It's fine post about the content issues, but stop complaining about other editors and the process. If you think this fairly short thread is "a bit much" (whatever that means), you have seen nothing on Wikipedia. You've been blocked multiple times the past few months, in August for an entire month, with one editor strongly suggesting it be made permanent. You might want to do some introspection about how you interact with other people and stop blaming others. -- GreenC 23:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Maxen Embry the constant back and forth is getting to be a bit much. Unfriendnow (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, User:GreenC, please check your wikitweet feed for recent developments. Unfriendnow, there may be a lot less back and much more forth from now on. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Organic notability

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)

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)

::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)

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

NPOV and due weight issues

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)

level of details about education and family to be covered in lede

@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)

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)

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. -- GreenC 15:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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. -- GreenC 23:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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). -- GreenC 23:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. -- GreenC 02:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. -- GreenC 14:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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). -- GreenC 18:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)