Jump to content

Talk:Dan Schneider/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

weight loss

Does anybody have information on his massive weight loss from one season to another on Head of the Class? The show started a season premiere with him removing an overcoat and showing he lost like 50 pounds (and the studio audience/laugh track went nuts.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.220.195 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Source? StewdioMACK Talk page 09:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Duplicates

Why are there separate and nearly identical pages for Dan Schneider (TV producer) and Dan Schneider (film professional)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.220.23 (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

#Merge-discussion

There are items in this biography article that are not appropriate. Why are "common elements" and "parodies" from his shows shown on here in list form. He produces these shows, but the lists as presented have nothing to do with him as producer without further elaboration. These items should be merged with the appropriate program articles or removed altogether. Wolfer68 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree The are for sepeate shows Also this section

Common elements in Zoey 101, Drake & Josh, and iCarly should be moved as well.Checker Fred (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo

In a recent episode of iCarly, Dan Schneider (or so I believe to be him), as well as other staff of iCarly come from behind the cameras and off-stage to dance in front of the cameras. I could easily get a photo of this using a digital camera off of my television. Would this be sufficient for this page? Luigalaxy (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That was iMeet the First Lady. He appears to be an advisor of hers in this episode, since he advises her not to discuss the robot. 71.171.89.90 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Enormous?

This article states: "the network increased the first season order from 13 episodes to 22 episodes, an enormous order for a television series." A typical season of network TV at least is 20+ episodes, so the "enormous" comment seems a bit odd. Jmdeur (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a co-star

The "Acting Career" section says he co-starred in a number of films. Schneider certainly appeared in these films but not in leading roles, he was a member of the supporting cast, sometimes with very minor roles. This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.191.15 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Schneider's Bakery is really not much more than Dan Schneider's writing team and staff. It isn't notable and should be merged.

--Confession0791 talk 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, because it's his writing and production team and not Dan Schneider himself, I have to disagree. ----DanTD (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

Well I have found on Intelius (listed here: scroll down to listing 14) that Dan is actually 48 years old (as of November 2012) and not 46, making him born in 1964. Tinton5 (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? [1]?? Tinton5 (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. And the subject contends that the Intellius search is wrong, and their date of birth is in fact 1966. I think the two combined should be sufficient to change it to 66. Daniel (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not see anything to indicate that therichest.com is a reliable source. Where does Schneider state his birth year is 1966? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how Intellus is any more reliable or unreliable, especially given in this case we know it is wrong. And the way I know what Schneider contends that his birthday is, is via an OTRS email we to the Wikimedia Foundation that someone who works for him sent on his behalf, that I responded to. The ticket number is 2013011510002096. Regards, Daniel (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see where anyone here said that Intellus is reliable. I don't see any reliable sources giving a birth date. With that in mind, I've removed it. If a verifiable source shows up, we can certainly add it. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I have seen that he is 66 in several articles and belive he mentioned his age on twitter whithc I added and was 1966. For now I can't find it but When I have the time I will look for it. There is an article in the NY Times as wellWP Editor 2012 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

After a few tries by another editor with IMDb, therichest (again), a fansite and such, I found this tweet from Schneider confirming January 14, but no year. The other editor has now added three more websites:

  • brainyhistory - Not a reliable source. Seems to draw its info from numerous places, including Wikipedia.[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#St._Bernard_.28dog.29] User generated.[2]
  • famousbirthdays - Although I cannot find specific discussion on the Noticeboard, the site itself gives no indications of where their info comes from, editorial control, fact checking, etc.[3] Looks to be just another random website that lists "information" it found somewhere.
  • whosdatedwho - User generated content with no indication of fact checking.[4][5]

Basically, we seem to be back where we started. The echo-chamber's blogs, fansites and such are repeating one date. Reliable sources have no information. (Another editor reported, above, that Schneider claims a different birth year, but didn't say where.) I'll leave the sources there for a day, tagged as questionable, then remove it (unless thefre is some kind of indication/discussion claiming they are reliable. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A Google search is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
What about the IDMB or this, can those links be acceptable? It describes the the birth date and the place where he was born. Blurred Lines 17:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
IMDb has been repeatedly discussed at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. While it is unquestionably reliable for some writing credits and is generally accepted for credits on released films, the overwhelming consensus is that it is not reliable for biographical information and that data is user generated (though with some oversight). Yahoo! Movies is less clear. Their content is from a variety of sources, ranging from traditional wire services (AP, Reuters and such) to, essentially, user submitted essays. The closest thing to a consensus I've found at the Noticeboard is that Y!M is not a reliable source, though its sources might be. In other words, if Y!M posts an article from the Associated Press, cite the Associated Press as a reliable source. A user essay on Y!M is not reliable. This reduces the question to: Where did Y!M get this info and is that a reliable source? Unfortunately, I don't see a clear answer. I haven't been able to find anything on Y!M giving a source for the biographical data. The write up following the data is apparently from "LEONARD MALTIN CLASSIC MOVIE GUIDE" cited here and here. That write up does not give a birth date, though it does say "Born and raised in Memphis, Tennessee", confirming at least that bit. So, if you can give a full cite for Maltin's guide, we'd have that bit nailed down. The year of his birth, though, still seems to be eluding us. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well how about this link, it describes when and where he was born. Is that a reliable source? Blurred Lines 19:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
User edited sites, like tv.com, are not reliable sources. Please see Identifying reliable sources. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki's own page for listing Dan Schneider shows for the first one on the list: Dan Schneider (TV Producer) (born 1966). I'd say that if it is good enough for Wiki on its own disambiguous page, it's good enough to list for him on his own page, at least for the Categories at the bottom. As for his exact date in 1966, I can leave that be for now, but you should acknowledge 1966 as his year of birth. You can't have it both ways. Now, I see you have suddenly removed (born 1966) for his link after I brought it to the attention of one of the editors. I can now say you are a bunch of hypocrites in not even letting his birth year by itself be shown in the Category section that has been shown on many reputable sources. I think many of the editors on Wiki are good, but there are a few who are downright bullies and won't let some sources be considered good. If many independent sources say he was born in 1966, you shouldn't say all are somehow disreputable. Yeah, some are going to be fan sites but that doesn't mean they don't find good sources themselves. It's not as if there are different years shown for him. All say 1966, period, and not one has shown a different year, causing the unreliable label to be attached as it then would be on that fact about him. Katydidit (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the year from the disamb page after you noted it. In all likelihood, the unsourced year was copied from unsourced date that was previously in this article. Now that unsourced date has been removed from this article. If, at this point, we copy the year from the disamb page to this article, we are essentially using this article as a source for itself.
It is true that various fansites, blogs and such might have used reliable sources. However, we have no way of verifying this. It is more likely they have simply copied the material wherever they found it, perhaps even this article. Other fansites looking for the date find those sites and copy the information from there. The date might be right. It might not. It might have originated from a reliable source. It might not. The Internet hates to not know things. Absent the correct date, a completly arbitrary date will appear somewhere: someone hears what Zodiac sign he supposedly has and states in their blog that they share a birth sign with him, someone else misreports this as them having the same birth date. A year surfaces based on an article copy-pasted into another blog. The original article date isn't copied, so the blog date is used. Someone puts this together and bingo -- we have a "birth date". Post that completely wrong date in one blog. Soon it is reported in unreliable sources all over the net.
Until we can find a reliable source that reports his birth date, the article will be just fine without it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Anything wrong with this website for a source on his exact birthdate and birthplace? Katydidit (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

We need "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:RS I see nothing to indicate that famousbirthdays.com is such a source. There terms page mentions sources for their photos (Wikipedia for some of them), but makes no mention of where everything else comes from or who runs the site. The best possible source for this kind of information is the subject's own website or a biography on an official site for his company or one of his shows. (I haven't been able to find this for Schneider). Next up would be a reliable magazine or newspaper. I've had no luck here for Schneider. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Right now the infobox says the subject was Born in 47-48. Can someone involved in this please fix? Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 04:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

They can't fix it without specifying an actual birthdate and a reference, and every source/reference posted has been categorically rejected because they are all "connected" and are automatically unreliable. We'll have to wait until his birthday next Jan. 14, and for his tweeting about it. That's about the only way it can be verified from an unimpeachable source (himself) that date and his age (48 in 2014 with a 1966 birthday) will finally be accepted by the powers-that-be, barring an article in the Los Angeles Times or an acceptable magazine article beforehand. I wonder if posting a date from a verifiable newspaper or magazine will not get me suspended without bowing down here first and asking the other editors if I may post it or am I now forbidden under their threat? I can't even post that he was born in Memphis, Tennessee although his page plainly shows he attended Memphis University School, and this Wiki page on Memphis people also lists his name! There are no sources for all those names, so they all need to be removed. Someone is doing a sloppy job of editing Wiki pages for accuracy! Katydidit (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
He attended Memphis University School. Based on this, he is from Memphis. I'm not sure how you decided this means he was born in Memphis. I was not born anywhere near any of the universities I've attended. We are not rejecting sources because they are connected to each other (although they may very well be using each other as sources). We are rejecting them because they are not reliable sources. Verifiability, especially in biographies of living persons, is a core policy of Wikipedia. Blogs, fansites and such are acceptable only in the most limited of circumstances. If Schneider mentions basic biographical info about himself in his own blog, we can cite that. Pretty much everything else in a self-published source is of no use to us. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
You are using the word university as if it were a college (post 12th grade) that you can be away from home. It's NOT. If you actually look at the link, it explains in the infobox it is for grades 7-12. He didn't travel to go there. Katydidit (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Your assumption is still a very large assumption. Lots of people don't even go to kindergarten in the city they were born in. Parents often move after they have a child. --NeilN talk to me 15:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. "Memphis University School" is not a University. That said, I was born several hundred miles from where I went to middle school and high school. Additionally, I had friends there who were born on different continents. Among the "Notable alumni" listed at Memphis University School are Frederick W. Smith (born in Mississippi) and David O. Sacks (born in South Africa). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I see ZERO references for all those listed. Therefore, they all need to be removed per Wiki policy: if you going to be consistent with the verifiable reference before posting an item. Which is frequently not the case, yet the items stay on, forever. Katydidit (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to address problems you find in other articles. However, please note Frederick_W._Smith#Early_years and David_O._Sacks#Personal_life. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
SummerPhD, using some obvious common sense, is completely right. And I've corrected the idiocy in the infobox. If it should be "1965 or 1966", please fix. --NeilN talk to me 06:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
It's 1966. Katydidit (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Find a reliable source and we can say that. Otherwise, we can continue to bicker endlessly about one of Wikipedia's core policies. Take your pick or let it go. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I found it on The New York Times, here. I added it to his page. This should end the discussion on his birthdate, but not yet on his birthplace. Katydidit (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe that source is user generated, so I hid the information from the page. I didn't remove it altogether. I say we wait to see his postings on Twitter this January 14 from his official account. Also, how do we know he went to Yale and Harvard, as well as White Station High School? More feedback would be appreciated.Tinton5 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Tinton5, why do you say this is user generated? --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay I don't have the time to go threw every cast members twitter, but I can tell you I stock them and His Birthday Is Jan 14. Also Everyone usually will wish him a happy Birthday. Also Jerry trainor and him share the same Birth month. If Tinton5, wants to go threw the twitter posts he may. Look for post along the lines like at Produucers B day party cops are called and so on. Jerry's is the 21, and they are about a week a part from each other. The people I watch are Jerry, Dan, Nathan, and the rest of the icarly cast. Dan's twitter is not that filled up this year, so his may be easier to go threw. Also he tanked everyone, may of been a day later thoughWP Editor 2012 (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The massive table

I don't think we need a massive table for all the shows he's produced. Takes up much too much space and doesn't conform to WP:TONE. The table we have with his works taking up one line each at the bottom of the article is fine, in my opinion. StewdioMACK Talk page 09:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The guideline you mentioned is about the tone, it has nothing to do with this page. You can't find the information organized so neatly anywhere. You would have to go to every show to find out how he was involved. Why would you want to delete it? It doesn't take too much space, maybe it's just unproportional to the amount of information we have on his life. This could be solved by adding information instead of deleting. --94.217.99.33 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

Remove the following clause "after evidence emerged that he had sexually abused some of the younger stars of his shows" from the final sentence of the final paragraph of the "television series" section as it is not supported by the cited sources. Julio144 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This was  Done at about the same time you posted this request. Thank you for highlighting this important problem with the article. MPS1992 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Info on Nickelodeon dismissal in lead

Should we reference the info on the end of Dan's relationship with Nickelodeon in the lead? The lead isn't long enough as it is, and it seems important and noteworthy news. Just wanted to gather opinions here. StewdioMACK (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is something noteworthy about the circumstances of his dismissal I suggest we leave it as is. As of now, all we know for sure is that Schneider's relationship with the network has ended. Majordouglas (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations?

There is so much stuff on the internet. At the very least these allegations should be noted, no? Take this Huffington post article: Nickelodeon Cuts Ties With ‘iCarly’ Creator Dan Schneider After Alleged Abusive Behavior [1] from March 27 2018. Yotamnk (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nickelodeon-cuts-ties-with-icarly-creator-dan-schneider-over-abuse-allegations_us_5aba7b37e4b04a59a31205e1

Date of Birth....can wikipedia add it ?

I think it would help the article a lot if wikipedia could figure out what his birthday is and list it instead of the 1965/66 as it is current listed. I googled his birthday and according to the results his birthday is January 14, 1966. It would be great if we could verify this date or another date and add to his page...again not really sure why this is being removed from a TALK PAGE not the article itself thanks 70.59.74.26 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC) [6] imdb lists it as Jan 14, 1966 70.59.74.26 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source, especially not for WP:BLP info. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

thank you what would be a reliable source to add a date of birth? 70.59.74.26 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Dan Schneider is Jewish

He is Jewish, according to this wholesosme actor named Nathan Kress from Schneider's show iCarly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud2btHsWgyM &listen to 7:10. TZlvyA (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Can't use that video as a source since it's from a random YouTube user. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
We can only use Schneider's direct words for this or some reliable secondary source. What Kress says can't be used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Danger Force" credits.

Dan Schneider is also credited as a creator & writer for "Danger Force" (the spinoff of Nickelodeon's "Henry Danger"). The Danger Force Wikipedia page does list Dan in those roles. Unless I completely missed it, I didn't see a direct reference to the spinoff in this article. Should the spinoff & credits be added to this article as well? 🤔 72.74.254.127 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe Dan's credit as creator & writer are referring to him having created and wrote the characters only. He has no actual involvement in the creation, writing, or production of the actual show. An entry in the table in the "Exit from Nickelodeon (2018–present)" section that states his involvement as only being the creation of the characters could be considered, but since there is no source to be found online either disproving or substantiating this, it should probably be left alone for now. --Chadwpalm (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I feel like Schneiderverse would belong better as a section within the article Dan_Schneider. The discussion there is better placed here, and if this is a commonly used term, a redirect could be made to send searches to this page instead of the disambiguation page. I have also left a similar note to this on the Schneiderverse page indicating that the discussion should happen here. Metiscus (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel like it should be an article on its own, so it can be linked and accessed from Dan Schneider and Nickelodeon (and maybe the involved shows).
Anyway, as ist stands now, Schneiderverse redirects here, and all former information therein is gone.
-Gott (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Not gone no more, a merge should be a merge—- who wants to live in a deletionist’s world, raise your hands... anyone ? WurmWoodeT 23:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

Please add a section called controversy and have a look at what i have written, its not slanderous as i am following the rules, many people want to know what was happening with Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider so this is an important piece to this wiki as there are lots of people who wanted to know

Controversy

Dan Schneider has made it a reoccurring joke to include scenes with the young stars feet throughout his shows , many viewers of his shows such as iCarly initially thought of it as an ongoing joke this has been apparent on social media where he requested on the Sam & Cat twitter page to get the audience (being young children) to send picture of their feet with the hashtags to get a retweet and a following ontop of many other occurences of this behaviour on twitter, this aroused alot of suspicion and has influenced his termination from Nickelodeon.

This has been noticed throughout social media accounts and numerous times on shows produced by him and as a result there has been media backlash and evidence proving this. Nickelodeon cancelled the show Game Shakers after 3 seasons his termination was reportedly due to aggressive behavior and hearsay of how he was treating the young stars in a derogatory manner. MrShroomsy (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
do you have any sources for your claims? i would be very surprised if you did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.81.225.81 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
source: https://twitter.com/SamAndCat/status/378643898886656000 Stapmoshun (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
adding another source here, specifically for the feet thing mentioned above, but it also generally adds to the number of credible sources reporting on Schneider’s (Redacted). I mean come on, this is some of the worst whitewashing I’ve seen on this website...not to mention GeraldoPerez’s edits seem to be deeply partisan.
source: (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B123:E196:2431:3465:8971:1348 (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The source even says rumor in the title. My only position is keeping unsubstantiated defamatory content out of the article. Nobody has directly accused Schneider of (Redacted) as nobody wants to be sued for defamation by him. Neither do we. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

https://adri.substack.com/p/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk I don’t know if this is user-generated content but it is a source Feralcateater000 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A quote from that source: "Schneider was Nickelodeon’s most high-profile producer, and the rumors about him have remained just that." Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Revert

@ JohnFromPinckney: Hello! Just wondering why what I added wouldn’t be considered ‘interesting’. Also why is a video with Dan Schneider talking directly not a credible source? Let me know what you think! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but the info seems somewhat trivial and a bit self-serving as it was from an interview. Impact on others would be better covered by reliable secondary sources or words from the people impacted stating it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your reply! I just figured since I sighted a video of Dan Schneider stating himself that the writer and creator of Star Trek the Original Series influences his own work directly, that it would be the perfect source since it’s coming “from the horse’s mouth”! To me that tid-bit is very useful if say, I’m doing a report on Dan Schneider. To state his influences would be beneficial & very informative! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
See section "Television series (1993–present)", likely the place for something like that if it talks to his influences on his own related work covered in that section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Elvisisalive95. Well, the "kicked off many careers" part was somewhat vague and completely unsourced (and in any case, didn't belong under "Personal life"). The Roddenberry thing is hardly worth mentioning, in my view, because (1) people say all kinds of things in interviews that aren't as important as one might think (and might not even be true), and this wasn't even an in-depth interview to find out what maks DS tick, it was a publicity thing where, as on a red carpet, Hollywood people say nice things about other Hollywood people, no matter what they really think of them; also, (2) the importance of GR's influence is probably rather minimal (despite Schneider's shout-out), as we don't know who else "influenced" his writing; and, in fact (3) the "influence" bit is only 10 seconds long. (Besides which, this doesn't belong under "Personal life" either.) All in all, the addition and the YouTube source didn't impress me enough for me to let it stand. Thanks for asking about my thinking! Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense to me JohnFromPinckney. I will remember that moving forward before touching personal lives! If it’s ok with you I’d love to run future possible edits by you first! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Working with Brian Robbins

It just seems like both their pages should mention how they worked together at Nickelodeon after starring together on Head of the Class. Obviously not just a coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.239.6 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cscherer1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

– This is the most common Dan Schneider today. TheRafaMarc15 (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Remove Reference to Schneider's Weight

The only Wikipedia article I've ever read that included a comment about the subject's weight is this one. Schneider has not commented extensively about his weight loss and his weight has nothing to do with his career as a TV producer. For these reasons, the article should omit the comment on Schneider's weight in the "personal life" section. Body size is one element of a person's physical appearance; unless Wikipedia article begin routinely making references to people's physical appearance, the mention of Schneider's weight will continue to be out of place and problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:4600:B583:CCFE:7647:A0CB:7A2B (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Poorly sourced allegations of impropriety

Schneider and Nickelodeon parted ways. That is well documented. Neither Schneider and Nickelodeon in any official statement gave a reason. Some writers are speculating as to reasons and adding those speculations to the factual reports of the split. Some of those speculations are defamatory and the writers are very careful to not directly state anything that would get them or their publication into legal problems. We should report the fact as sourced, we don't need to report the editorializing, speculation and beliefs of writers included in the factual reports. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The facts are staff at Nickelodeon have said Dan is an "a**hole", and has a bad temper. Numerous articles have reported the "cloud of suspicion" regarding his treatment of young actresses. Ghoul flesh • talk 23:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Those supposed "facts" were never stated by Nick or Schneider as reason for them breaking ties. No source has stated that those supposed facts were the reason. Some sources have speculated that that may be the reason using the rhetorical trick of saying some thing happened then something else happened implication of causation but that is all anyone has done, speculated. There is a lot of gossip about his purported behavior but nothing backing it up. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Comes down to sources. Reddit, Twitter threads, Daily Mail, TMZ, National Enquirer, PageSix (NY Post) don't meet the bar when it comes to serious allegations. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
also don't forget that he is one of god's chosen people. so the allegations simply originate in antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.81.225.81 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the most obvious reason these internet rumors should be considered as nothing but rumors is because there is NO WAY in a post #MeToo/#TimesUp world, that he would have been fired for what these rumors claim WITHOUT there being some official word. Nickelodeon simply wouldn't have taken the chance of NOT coming right out and saying this is why he was fired if there was legit evidence simply because if it ever got out that Nickelodeon knew this, and fired him for it and DIDN'T say why, which would warn other networks to stay away from him, then THEY would get raked over the coals. No way they would be trying to protect his reputation by not saying why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.239.6 (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
While there exist claims against Schneider that remain unsubstantiated, the existence of such claims are a fact of his biography. You cannot wish them away, and refusing to include them is a grave omission. As presented, they are neutrally stated, including claims from multiple sides of the story. Objectivity is the inclusion of multiple perspectives, meaning your wish to exclude certain facts is the subjective position, and frankly, biased and bizarre. Rorysolomon (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Those claims in of themselves are unsubstantiated and are defamatory. The sources are passing rumors and we do not need to repeat them. Particularly we don't need to highlight it in a sections called "Controversy" which this is not. What we have that is neutral is that he and Nick parted ways and that is already in the article. Nothing more is needed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Calling them "passing rumors" is a bald mischaracterization. They are in fact not passing and have dogged Schneider for years, refusing to dissipate. At this point, this controversy is a fact of his biography that warrants mention. It has been discussed and linked to his severance from Nickelodeon in multiple reputable news sources (New York Times, Washington Post). I am not mentioning the claims as fact, nor citing anonymous users on Twitter or Reddit. They have been discussed in newspapers of record and deserve objective mention in a discussion of his life. Your insistence on censoring that is inappropriate. Rorysolomon (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Most of the sources pass WP:RS; the problem is that they don't state them as fact, which makes the statements rumors. For example, Deadline Hollywood reports: Among other things, I hear there had been multiple complaints of abusive behavior against Schneider filed by members of his staff. Emphasis mine. That is not fact, it is hearsay, gossip. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. In that case let's include my edits but omit the Deadline Hollywood reports and rely only on the New York Times and Washington Post. To be clear, I did not add the Deadline story to the WP article. It was already referenced – which apparently GeraldoPerez is OK with – I only cited it again, but my edits stand alone without it. Frankly I'm amazed that GeraldoPerez feels he is in a better position than NY Times to determine whether certain claims pass muster. If he objects to the claim, perhaps he should petition NYT to issue a retraction. Until then, WP should mention the existence of this controversy as a fact of this person's biography. Rorysolomon (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Their reports are based on Deadline Hollywood's report, which is the first site that reported the departure, so we cannot do that. Unless we have cold hard facts, not just hearsay, we shouldn't be reporting anything. You should have been here discussing this after you were first reverted, per WP:BRD, especially given that this material has been reverted or removed numerous times before. See Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs/Controversy for a similar example, in which editors tried to push for something that did not belong on the article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we have a source now, with Jennette McCurdy's book. Waiting to see comment from Schneider/Nick, unless someone else sees it first. Aresef (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What we know and can reference is that Schneider and Nickelodeon split. People were surprised at that as Schneider seemed to be doing good work for them. There may have been a $7million payout as part of the split, and sources says that Schneider was a target of false on-line smears and the real reason for the split was management disagreements. We should not mention other people as that gives the appearance of being the same thing and what happened to Savino is much better supported. We should not be giving details about the content of the unsubstantiated rumors as that is the point that is potentially defamatory. As originally written the content paints a picture in the reader's mind of something that would be blatantly defamatory if directly stated. Everyone is careful to not be identified, no direct accusations are made and there is no proof provided. It would be different if someone had actually come forward and made a claim, but nobody has. That kind of content does not belong in this article. What NYT and WaPo chooses to published is their own editorial choices and we are not slaved to what they choose to do. If anything is added to the article, it should be a part of the previous paragraph that mentions his departure. It should not be a separate section and should avoid any mention of the details of any of the rumors. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. In particular, I would like to point out the policy WP:BLPGOSSIP to Rorysolomon. --Chris (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. Could someone advise the protocol to proceed here? Should I resubmit some text that is edited to be in agreement with this discussion? Rorysolomon (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd recommend that you propose some text on this talk page, for two reasons: this will prevent another edit war, and we want to be mindful of WP:BLP. --Chris (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have settled out years ago, but the lack of a controversy section on this page is a glaring omission. I came to this page to find an unbiased report of the allegations against Dan Schneider and found them almost completely missing. Substantiated or not, there should be coverage of the existence of these allegations. Sgrandpre (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Rorysolomon (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You won’t find any, Sadly. But just go to his tweeter and you’ll find dozens of pics of children’s feet for some weird reason. But these editors don’t care about that. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A couple of articles out in the last 24hrs. Business Insider and The Cut BethMBender (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This article has been grossly downplaying the accusations against Dan Schneider

This article has no mention of the accusations against Dan Schneider about his sexualization of young actors and actresses. A discussion was made about this in 2019 but this needs to be re-addressed. These aren’t rumors from Twitter or Reddit, there are many articles detailing these accusations, and Schneider was even asked about it in a 2021 interview. Arguably, this is what Schneider is now most known for and is a staple of his legacy. This needs to be addressed. TheXuitts (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It's irrelevant how "detailed" the accusations are if there's zero proof. Ditto for how popular this characterization is on the internet. You're approaching this from the school of thought that says where there's smoke there's fire. In fact articles report that the Viacom investigation cleared him of any sexual misconduct. Jaeran (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
A Viacom investigation clearing him (I Googled it and couldn’t find anything about it but feel free to link it) doesn’t dismiss the various allegations made against him. The fact of the matter is that this the pinnacle of his reputation and blatantly ignoring this absolutely gigantic scandal is reprehensibly irresponsible of us. TheXuitts (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Completely Agreed. It's astounding that the article doesn't even mention the many allegations against him, especially when it's becoming the most notorious part of his career. It's disgusting to shelter this sick predator, and for what? 71.115.225.176 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I also agree. It's basically all people are talking about in relation to Schneider, and there's nothing about it on Wikipedia?
Even if there is no factual evidence (I'm not sure, as I haven't researched it extensively myself), the wiki page should at least mention that the controversy exists.
What's wrong with citing sources reporting that claims and accusations were made? It's like if someone was accused of murder, it would be mentioned on the wikipage as well, because it is part of the biography, same as the accusations here have become part of Schneider's biography. Die-yng (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Can a consensus be made that these allegations should be mentioned in the article as long as there are reliable and thorough sources? TheXuitts (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Please present the thorough, reliable sources so they can be evaluated. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Some sources for further discussion. Many details are already covered in the "Exit from Nickelodeon (2018)" section. Deadline 2018: "...For years Schneider had been under a cloud of suspicion over the treatment of some younger stars of his shows. Among the things that have raised eyebrows are his tweeted photos of the toes of his young female stars." WP 2018: "...complaints about Schneider’s alleged behavior, including his “well-documented temper issues for years”; and how he has come under fire online for tweeting pictures of his young female stars’ feet." NYT 2021: "ViacomCBS... found no evidence of sexual misconduct by Schneider, the people said, but it did find he could be verbally abusive to people he worked with... Several said they felt uncomfortable when he frequently asked an employee from the costume department for shoulder and neck massages, or texted child actors outside of work hours." Collider 2022: "Dan Schneider... has been dogged by allegations of abuse in the workplace both from former cast members and employees." Rinbro (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it is time to mention something about this as this has come out today [7]. Sure it doesn't state Dan directly, but since he is the creator of iCarly it is easy to figure out that this is about him. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
No. Making connections not directly stated in a reference is impermissible WP:SYNTHESIS. She didn't state his name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The connection to Dan Schneider is directly stated in the reference. McCurdy may not have made the connection, but the Deadline article, along several other articles published this week by high profile news outlets, do make the connection. It would be WP:Synthesis if we used McCurdy's memoir as the only source. It would not be synthesis to use the numerous third-party sources that directly link Schneider to McCurdy's claims. --Jpcase (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
None of them directly link Schneider, they get by by using implications but not direct statements. Likely because they don't want to get sued for defamation by Schneider. McCurdy was careful to not name him for likely the same reasons. She could easily have just stated who she meant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
None of the third party sources explicitly state, "McCurdy's allegations are about Schneider". But they do all directly discuss Schneider by name in a context that makes it blatantly clear they are linking Schneider to McCurdy's allegations - going so far as to state that Schneider refused to comment on the allegations. --Jpcase (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The fact that none of the third party sources are willing to explicitly state, "McCurdy's allegations are about Schneider" is why we can't do that either per WP:SYNTHESIS. Yes, they carefully imply that by the structure of the articles and how they present the facts they do stand behind, but they refuse to make that one direct statement. What we get from McCurdy's recollections is that she was in a hostile work environment and found it intolerable. That information is potentially relevant to the projects she worked on, not directly in the bio article about one of the producers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
McCurdy's allegations about misconduct on the set of iCarly would not belong in a BLP article about any producer of iCarly. But I believe her allegations absolutely belong in a BLP about the creator and showrunner of iCarly. To be clear, I'm not arguing that this article should state McCurdy accused Schneider of misconduct. The article shouldn't state that because the sources we have don't state that. But I do strongly believe that this article should state what the sources state, which is that McCurdy made allegations of misconduct occurring on a show overseen by Schneider and that Schneider refused to answer requests for comment on the allegations. Schneider is not directly named as the one who committed the misconduct, but we do have sources explicitly stating that Schneider was in charge of the show where the alleged misconduct occurred, which makes the allegations directly relevant to Schneider, in one way or another. --Jpcase (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The article already covers in a general sense most of what McCurdy alleges. Deadline Hollywood, the first to report about Nickelodeon parting ways with Schneider, also reported that there were complaints about Schneider's alleged behavior, including his alleged "well-documented temper issues for years" and Schneider did respond to that. McCurdy adds her personal experiences and how she perceived it but is really just another of the complaints. The fact that Schneider didn't respond to the McCurdy's statements may just mean he felt he already has in his previous response. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

At worst, McCurdy's allegations might be redundant to what is already included in this article about Schneider's alleged behavior. But I want to be very clear that I do not believe it would be a BLP violation to discuss McCurdy's allegations in this article, so long as care is taken in how the allegations are presented. Stating that McCurdy accused Schneider of misconduct would be inappropriate. Stating that McCurdy made allegations of repeated misconduct occurring on the productions of Schneider's shows would be accurate and can be sourced not only with Deadline, but with The New York Times and The Washington Post. And personally, I don't believe it would even be redundant to mention McCurdy's claims in this article, both because some of her claims go beyond the "temper issues" that are already discussed in the article and because her claims corroborate the earlier allegations. --Jpcase (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

this article is kind of ridiculous in how it is ignoring McCurdy's perspective. as an outsider who doesn't contribute and just reads, the article as-is definitely reads like it is not neutral and is in fact heavily weighted in favor of Schneider. I would recommend a section on the SEXUAL misconduct in particular. 71.175.33.102 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The LATimes and NewsWeek are reporting that this week's protests at Nickelodeon were specifically regarding Schneider. I understand the hesitancy around out and out confirming the allegations, but surely protests specifically regarding him should be added? There's definitely now consistency in news sources naming him in their articles. AtticEdit (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, current-day Newsweek articles are generally not considered to be reliable sources. But the Los Angeles Times certainly qualifies as a reliable source. And the protests have been covered by several other reputable publications, such as Vanity Fair, People, and The A.V. Club. --Jpcase (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

People are obviously running interference for this guy on here. Women have come forward, but because he's an industry darling, it's downplayed. This 'encyclopedia' is a joke, policed exclusively by midwit shills with apparent sympathies toward sexual predators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:743:203:2B90:802D:E3F:AA6A:8860 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


there is documentary proof that it indeed does exist factually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl0OuXw_mTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bha3uh0-ris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8EELpXzzIg
Dudanotak (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC) (sorry for shitty editing)

How are we handling Jennette McCurdy's accusation?

I think this merits a new thread. I made an edit based on the excerpt from her book and it was reverted. How should we work that into this page and where should it go? Aresef (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted mainly with the on going discussion above. Piging: Geraldo Perez Amaury Aoi Rinbro and TheXuitts

They all seem to have more experience with this issue and could provide advise on this. Right now the section is just about his separation from Nick. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

She didn't name him. She made some unsubstantiated allegations. She implied it was about Schneider but very carefully avoided making any direct defamatory statements about him that could get her sued. Maybe belongs in her article, but not in this one. What is in this article now is accurate and neutral and doesn't have Wikipedia making statements that are not directly supported by references. Making any sort of connection from what McCurdy stated and it being relevant to Schneider is WP:SYNTHESIS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It absolutely needs to be included, and in this article. The issue is being talked about by tens of thousands across social media, and is arguably the main thing people in 2022 associate with him. The fact that the user above has been fighting for years to keep this serious matter, which is hyper-relevant to Schneider's biography, out of this article, is truly, truly bizarre. I came here today after McCurdy's accusations made the rounds in social media, and was shocked to see this extremely well-known information practically censored out of his article. A proper "controversies" section, which already exists in the articles of several Hollywood personalities, needs to be added to this one too. Completely incomprehensible behavior to try and explain away these extremely consistent allegations, made over many years by untold numbers of his associates. Get it added as soon as possible. Μαρκος Δ 02:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It is in the article in the "Exit from Nickelodeon (2018)" section. Coverage in social media doesn't count as a reliable source and isn't a weighing factor on what and how much a topic gets covered in a biographical Wikipedia article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
She didn't name Schneider directly but she calls the individual "The Creator" and she sure didn't mean God. I think it's reasonably to say these allegations were made and that Schneider created the shows in which she appeared. And if Nick or Schneider put out a statement, it would be responsible to include that. Aresef (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding McCurdy's accusation: we need to be careful (per WP:BLP) how any discussion of this is framed here on Wiki because McCurdy apparently does not specifically name Schneider in her book. I read the New York Times article on the book the other day; Schneider was not specifically mentioned there either. The Washington Post article mentions Schneider briefly but does not directly state that he is "The Creator" that McCurdy writes about. We can speculate as to who "The Creator" is (probably, I would say, with a high degree of accuracy), but unless high quality reliable sources make that connection, it's still WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and a violation of WP:BLP to include it here in this specific article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks it seemed like more of just a connection as she stated creator, but didn't directly name him. All the other sources I have read about this are pretty vague from a few years ago. Alexa Nikolas did also come out at one point if I remember correctly, but didn't name Dan in her posts on Instagram. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Nikolas is now being more explicit. Aresef (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
First this discussion is a mess and the site doesn't even work as it keeps saying article is deleted. I am going by Geraldo Perez's and Aoi 's stance on this issue. Unless they agree I will leave it alone. They both have seem to be the ones who want specific sites and rules to be followed. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Update: I did manage to get the site to finally work, but seems after I reverted on Alexa Nikolas's page AV club was added back in for

newsweek. However with another addition too the page, it was stated WP:NEWSWEEK says it's generally not reliable post 2013 so shouldn't be used when reasonable alternative available, especially on BLP and sensitive information being cited. The list is better to cite than our own personal opinions of sources when available. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we can note the allegation without necessarily saying he did it. We can say McCurdy said "The Creator" did X, Schneider created these shows, here's what Schneider says. Regardless of who "The Creator" is, these are things that happened on shows he created and produced and I think her accusations are germane to this page. Aresef (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It adds nothing beyond what is already in the article now. One more person with unsubstantiated allegations. He has already responded to those allegations in total. Any connection we make between the "creator" she mentions and the subject of this article is still out-of-bounds synthesis. Any reference we have that does not directly name Schneider does not belong in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Geraldo, the accusations are not stated clearly in the article at all. You cited the section "Exit from Nickelodeon (2018)" as containing information about the accusations. The truth is that this section in fact does not state the accusations clearly. It just says "there were complaints about Schneider's alleged behavior, including his alleged 'well-documented temper issues for years' and his tweets showing photos of his young actresses' feet." That's it. It doesn't address the multiple, multiple accusations against him regarding harassment. It doesn't explain the context of the feet pictures, nor how this is connected to the accusations themselves. The section just immediately jumps to his own defense, which is "The comedy was totally innocent". What comedy?! The "foot comedy"? The section is not even clear about this. We need to lay out this information in plain writing, because it's a significant part of this person's biography. I don't know why you appear to have a vested interest in blocking this very important and hyper-relevant information from being included in the article, but it is not ethical. Μαρκος Δ 12:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Μαρκος Δ then you need to provide a WP:RS that isn't WP:SYNTHESIS, doesn't cause an edit conflict, and works with WP:BLP. All the sources out there don't work for this issue. Everything is sugar coated that doesn't say Schneider directly. Actors who have come out refer to The Crew, The Creator or other wording that doesn't directly connect to him. It is all assumptions at this point. We also need a source that states his name directly. Anotheer note articles that do fall under a reliable source is very opinionated information from what they have heard. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Just realized this talk page is up, and, as Μαρκος Δ pointed out, it is truly, truly bizarre that Geraldo Perez has consistently tried to keep these infamous allegations out of the article. As other users have pointed out, this is what he is known for in the modern day it’s absolutely mind-boggling this isn’t mentioned in the article since it is the epitome of his reputation. You want some sources that explicitly mention Schneider? Here, I’ll give them to you.

Jennette McCurdy Reignites Disturbing Dan Schneider, Nickelodeon Allegations in Explosive Memoir
The Dan Schneider Controversy Explained
Dan Schneider Addresses Allegations Of Misconduct During Nickelodeon Reign
Dan Schneider Addresses Nickelodeon Exit, Denies Inappropriate Behavior in New Interview

With McCurdy’s explosive new allegations, it is absolutely incomprehensible that this is even a discussion at this point. The line of “there isn’t enough evidence” isn’t for us to decide, that is entirely subjective. We are an encyclopedia, and this has been reported on outlets from The Daily Beast to Variety. Schneider has literally made a FAKE wikipedia page with zero negative aspects of his legacy. This is the pinnacle of his legacy, and it deserves a paragraph or two in this page at the least. TheXuitts (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to see this article conform to WP:BLP, which is Wikipedia policy - if you see that as bizarre, so be it. Specifically see WP:BLPGOSSIP. McCurdy's "explosive new allegations" actually don't say anything that has not already been covered and also she doesn't directly mention Schneider at all in what she says - see WP:SYNTHESIS for why that is necessary. Existing content of this article sufficiently covers the issues. Nothing has changed from the extensive discussions from 4 years ago, What Schneider is known for is his body of notable activities. WP:RECENTISM encourages balance, latest activities are not necessarily the most important content in a biography. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anything "bizarre" about Geraldo Perez's stance. This is a sensitive issue, and I understand caution. But I do feel that Perez is being overly cautious. It's true that neither McCurdy's memoir nor any of the third-party sources so far reporting on this have explicitly identified Schneider as the "creator" at the center of McCurdy's allegations. And so I'm not sure we could outright say that McCurdy accused Schneider of anything. But as Aresef has pointed out (and as I've already expressed in the previous talk page section above), McCurdy's allegations are highly relevant to Schneider, regardless of whether or not Schneider can be personally identified as the "creator", because the allegations are about misconduct that occurred on Schneider's shows. That alone makes the allegations worth covering here. And while some may feel that McCurdy's allegations are redundant to what is already said in the article, a lot of us clearly disagree with that view. Jpcase (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I can see, at most, a sentence in the existing section that covers his exit from Nick that basically states McCurdy found working on Schneider's Bakery productions intolerable to her with details limited by WP:BLPBALANCE. Reference the book directly as that is the root source. I still think that is unnecessary as it really adds little. But linking it to his production and production company which is also mentioned in the section is somewhat relevant in context and McCurdy did make direct accusatory statements (that very carefully avoided naming Schneider himself) that give some more context to why Nick dropped Schneider's Bakery as a production partner. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
McCurdy's book does not name him directly, but it is extremely obvious that she means him. Here's some reasons that lead me to think that The Creator is most definitely Dan Schneider. Unfortunately I cannot give exact page numbers since I'm reading on an e-reader, but locating these passages should be extremely easy, because the chapters in the book are relatively short (usually less than 2 pages for me).
In chapter 31 the Creator is described as having "hair trigger temper". McCurdy describes that she was extremely uncomfortable doing a bikini shoot, but she had to do it because the Creator specifically requested bikinis, and not one-pieces. Chapter 33 states that the Creator is known to give characters in his existing shows spin-off shows. McCurdy quotes him as having said that that he works with a lot of young actresses and that "a lot of them are pretty". He's "the reason why [McCurdy is] a series regular on a television show". He's described as having "two distinct sides": One being "generous and over-the-top complimentary" and the other being "mean-spirited, controlling, and terrifying". He promises McCurdy a spin-off titled "Just Puckett" on the condition that she "listen to [him], take [his] advice and let [him] guide [her]", but "It can't happen for a while, because iCarly's doing too well".
In chapter 41 Victorious is called the Creator's "other show". This seems like a very strong confirmation of his identity to me. While him and McCurdy are discussing he spin-off he pressures her (who was 18 at the time) into drinking alcohol because "The Victorious kids get drunk all the time". McCurdy ends up taking a sip, but hates it. The Creator places his hand on McCurdy's knee, remarks that she has goosebumps and asks her if she's cold. McCurdy agrees, because "It's always best to agree with the Creator". He puts his coat on her. Then "He pats [her] shoulders and then the pat turns into a massage". McCurdy is scared to tell him to stop.
In chapter 52 and 58 it is confirmed that her spin-off eventually became Sam & Cat. This also seems like a confirmation of the Creator's identity to me. Chapter 61 calls Sam & Cat the Creator's show and it also says that the Creator promised McCurdy "a position as director on one of the episodes". McCurdy also remarks that "The Creator is ever-present during the shoot, adamant about his own ideas, and not very receptive to anyone else's".
Chapter 63 states: "The Creator has gotten in trouble from the network for accusations of his emotional abuse. I feel like it's been a long time coming, and it should have happened a lot sooner. I appreciate the amount of trouble he's gotten in. It wasn't just a slap-on-the-wrist sort of thing. It's to the point where he's no longer allowed to be on set with any actors, which makes communication between takes complicated".
He is stated to direct from a separate room, in which he keeps "Kids' Choice Awards blimps, his most cherished life accomplishment". Chapter 64 reveals that the 300 000$ she was offered to not speak about her experiences at Nickelodeon were specifically for her not to speak about her experiences relating to the Creator.
All of this should make it extremely clear that "The Creator" cannot be anyone but Dan Schneider. Many of the accusations here make it seem extremely irresponsible to me not to mention the allegations in this article. Kovariszt (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I do not necessarily disagree with your analysis, but your analysis is prohibited by Wikipedia's original research policy. The issue here is that we need a high quality, reliable source that explicitly says whatever we say about Schneider (or any other living person for that matter). Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how saying that the person who created Victorious, iCarly and Sam & Cat is Dan Schneider is original research. Unless the pages on those three shows are mistaken as listing him as the sole creator of them. This is like if a source about a book only referred to its author by "the author of [book name]" and not by name. The rest would be, but I mainly wrote that so people here get a full overview of what the book states about "The Creator". Kovariszt (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
It is WP:OR because we would be making a conclusion not directly stated in the source. The publishers of McCurdy's book wouldn't permit her to name him directly - potential defamation. Other publishers say "alleged" as a talisman for the same reasons. Wikipedia is considered a publisher too and Wiki Foundation is legally responsible for everything published on this site. Wikipedia doesn't get the common carrier legal exemption that social media gets, where you can say defamatory statements and get away with it. WP:BLP is very careful to give a lot of weight to not having poorly sourced defamatory content on biographical articles in particular and anywhere else on Wikipedia in general mainly because of legal exposure. It would be "irresponsible" to open Wikipedia to legal action by publishing poorly sourced defamatory statements about a living person in their article. Well sourced is fine but the sources better be clear and direct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Then why can't we also say "alleged"? I also do not see how this is even remotely poorly sourced. Schneider's main legacy at this point are the allegations. To not mention it seems extremely biased and protective of abuse. The page reads as if it was written by Dan Schneider himself. Kovariszt (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a passage in the book where he is named directly. First name anyway. Aresef (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you quote this passage? If so much text is needed for context that it would be a copyright violation to include it here, I'd be grateful if you could send it to me by email. — Bilorv (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
The passage describes a dinner with her, The Creator and her mom. The Creator asks how she likes being recognized/famous and her mom says she "loves it." From page 116-117
Mom's breath gets rapid with anticipation.
"...I want to give Jennette her own show."
Mom accidentally drops her fork with excitement. It clinks against the plate.
"I even have the name picked out. Just Puckett. Idn't [sic] that a fun name for your own show?" Dan asks with a smirk. Aresef (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh wow, thanks for the info. I wonder if this is an editing error, if it doesn't fit with the surrounding context. In any case, it possibly strengthens the case that connecting The Creator to Schneider is BLP appropriate, but I don't think it's enough to say that McCurdy said it was Schneider explicitly. — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it's Schneider, too. But we can't make that leap absent McCurdy or someone else naming him directly. That said, I stand by my position that the allegations belong on this page regardless, as long as we contextualize them. Aresef (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
That allegations were made is on the page. Details about them don't belong as they are "alleged" and not stated as facts about the subject of this page in any reliable source. It is not our job as writers of an encyclopedia to exact justice on "alleged" abusers by creating a wall of shame on their Wikipedia article. Leave that to social media, that is what they are good at. We do document proven abusers and actual legal actions if we can source the information. Remember WP:BLP is not a guideline, it is one of the core Wikipedia policies and if anything, it does require us to treat the subjects of bio articles with care and respect, even ones we don't like. From BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
She is even sugar coating it on an interview here by not really talking about the issue, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtMJwdP8TCs (starts at 5:30). Also to just note that it seems the @Danwarp twitter and instagram accounts now have a media contact added to his profile. It also appears that a mistake was made in the book on page 117, she puts Dan instead of The Creator https://twitter.com/latestnicknews/status/1556905475798704129 “I even have the name picks out. Just Puckett. Idn’t that a fun name for your own show? Dan asks with a smirk.”Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
That Schneider is "the creator" has never really been in question. The point that Geraldo Perez has been getting at is simply that we cannot use our own inferences to identify him as such on Wikipedia. Having said that, we no longer have to infer anything. Buzzfeed News published this article yesterday, in which Schneider is explicitly identified as the creator. --Jpcase (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, this is also in my copy of the book. I don't see how I didn't notice that while I was reading. Sorry for making that more complicated than it should be. Kovariszt (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Like I said a couple days ago, we now have a very high quality source directly identifying Schneider as "the creator" in this article. I see no reason to continue omitting McCurdy's allegations from this article (or other relevant articles, such as iCarly). --Jpcase (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Other than McCurdy statements supporting the general statements already sourced in the article, what does it add? Is the goal to make Schneider look worse than he is already depicted? It is pretty clear there was verbal abuse and he was difficult to work but no evidence of sexual misconduct in the investigation ViacomCBS ran. And Schneider admitted he was hard to work with. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of adding this information is simply to reflect significant, well-sourced news coverage about Schneider. If allegations have been made, and if numerous reputable publications have seen fit to report on those allegations, then the allegations should be mentioned here unless there's a very good reason to omit them. And McCurdy's allegations about "the creator" do go beyond the "temper issues" currently mentioned in this article. McCurdy has alleged that Schneider pressured her into underage drinking, gave her a nonconsentual massage, and eventually had to be barred from interacting directly with the cast. None of that is conveyed through a simple mention of "temper issues". Ultimately I'll let others decide whether to add McCurdy's allegations to Schneider's article. I'm simply noting that we do now have quality sourcing directly identifying Schneider as "the creator", so there does not seem to be much reason to go on omitting the allegations from this article. But again, I'll let others make the final call on that. I do feel very strongly that the allegations should be added to the iCarly article, as they relate directly to McCurdy's experiences working on that show. --Jpcase (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Some are McCurdy's subjective perceptions "unwanted touching" and "pressured". Being barred from interaction with the cast, though, is objective and significant. I'll also leave it to others to decide about what well-sourced content to include. Just to note, though, McCurdy seems to have had a very unpleasant experience as an actress, mostly caused by her mother it seems, but the overall environment for young actors looks extremely toxic and her experiences seemed particularly bad. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Cerebral726 I have seen you added this information on Jennette's page in her personal section, maybe you can give input on this issue as a whole. I have taken off the iCarly page due to this discussion, but think it maybe have to be taken down on her page as well. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anything in this conversation that would preclude mentioning McCurdy's allegations in her own article or the iCarly article. All of the concerns that have been raised about including the allegations in Schneider's article are specific to this particular article, and so I do not see an apparent reason for why those concerns would apply to any other article. --Jpcase (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Jpcase regarding the content in Jenette McCurdy. It mentions McCurdy's allegations without drawing any WP:OR conclusions and using reliable sources. I don't have any comment at the moment on this article's description of allegations against Schneider. Cerebral726 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jpcase: I agree that this article should be updated to include more of the published and reliably sourced content on McCurdy's accusations. The BuzzfeedNews article in particular is extremely strong, and the article is incomplete without using the breadth of RS's that describe more specific accusations outside of the "difficult to work with" ones. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible addition

Looking for thoughts on this addition:

In Jennette McCurdy's 2022 memoir I'm Glad My Mom Died, she described an incident of being photographed in a bikini at a wardrobe fitting and being encouraged to drink alcohol by a person identified in the memoir as "The Creator". Buzzfeed News identified "The Creator" as Schneider.[1] She stated that Nickelodeon later offered her $300,000 to agree not to discuss her experiences at the network, which she turned down.[2][3][1]

I think this covers the facts inline with available strong sources, including the quote identifying Dan as "The Creator". --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Support, and include what I noted before about The Creator at one point in the book being referred to as Dan. The allegations fit the MO of allegations previously investigated by Nick and we are under no obligation to defer to their finding he did nothing wrong in that regard. Aresef (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Koul, Scaachi (8 August 2022). "Jennette McCurdy Is Glad Her Mom Is Dead (Along With Her Nickelodeon Career)". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 12 August 2022. If you come to McCurdy's memoir for some juicy tidbits about working with Dan Schneider (the creator of iCarly and Sam & Cat, among a slate of other Nickelodeon shows) and Ariana Grande, you'll get some, but not much. There are details about "The Creator," a title for Schneider that McCurdy chose simply because it made her laugh.
  2. ^ Itzkoff, David (3 August 2022). "Jennette McCurdy Is Ready to Move Forward, and to Look Back". The New York Times. The New York Times.
  3. ^ ""This Phony, Bizarre Sphere": Jennette McCurdy's Shocking Final Days at Nickelodeon". Vanity Fair. 5 August 2022. Retrieved 10 August 2022.

Some thoughts:

Do any of the sources specify that "The Creator" was involved in the bikini photo? One could assume that the photo may have been taken at Schneider's direction, but I can't recall that actually being said in any of the sources. If a direct connection can't be drawn to Schneider, then it shouldn't be mentioned here - although it would still belong in McCurdy's own article.

It should be specified that McCurdy was underage when she was pressured into drinking alcohol.

McCurdy's allegation that Schneider was barred from interacting directly with the cast should be mentioned. Her allegation of a nonconsentual massage may also be worth mentioning. --Jpcase (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Pressured into doing something may be as little as being offered a beer in a social situation where she felt social pressure to fit in. Underage drinking by teens. Did he encourage it or just tolerate it? A bikini photo - nothing illegal or even untoward about that at all. Her allegation of nonconsensual massage of her shoulders doesn't rise to the level of harassment if he stopped when she told him to - she obviously disliked being touched by him. The only factual information that belongs in this article potentially is the statement Schneider was barred from interacting with the cast. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Per this excerpt from McCurdy's memoir, Schneider personally gave McCurdy alcohol and insisted multiple times on her trying it despite McCurdy's voiced objections.
Based on that same excerpt, it does not seem that McCurdy voiced any objection to the massage when it was happening. But massaging an employee would likely be considered harassment, regardless of whether McCurdy asked him to stop or not. It might be different if they were colleagues. Schneider was her boss. While one could certainly argue that it's not a very severe form of harassment, it still seems inappropriate for an employer-employee relationship - especially when said employee was a teenager at the time. I believe that it makes sense to mention the massage in McCurdy's own article. I have no opinion on whether it should be mentioned in this article.
The bikini photo may have been untoward depending on the particulars of the situation - I don't know enough about the overall context to have an opinion about it. But I agree that it seems trivial. McCurdy's feelings about the photo might be worth mentioning in her own article. But I agree that it doesn't seem to belong in this article. --Jpcase (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) Μαρκος Δ 16:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Schneider has not been accused of any sexual misconduct whatsoever beyond the allegations of inappropriate massages. There's absolutely no place for unfounded rumors about Schneider or personal attacks against other editors. I understand why Geraldo Perez wants to be cautious and have appreciated his input. Jpcase (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely no personal attacks there, as that is objectively what he is doing. He can resist as much as he wants, but rest assured the information will be added eventually. Μαρκος Δ 17:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)My interest is WP:BLP and avoiding WP:DEFAMATION. Allegations by people who don't like him for whatever reason don't raise to the level of proof, repeating details of unproven allegations is not appropriate, and charges of committing criminal actions do require reliable sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I have been listening to the audiobook and haven't gotten to the worst of Schneider's actions but, besides referring to him as Dan at one point in describing a lunch meeting she and her mother had with him, there are other points where she's clearly describing Dan Schneider. Talking about how he usually makes spinoffs of shows he creates and describing his behavior in a way that lines up with the things Nickelodeon did admit he did. Aresef (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I support Cerebral726's addition, because BuzzFeed News is a high-quality source and it names "The Creator" as Schneider. Elsewhere, content from McCurdy's autobiography should be included at iCarly and Sam & Cat (and currently is), and Schneider's Bakery and Victorious (TV series) and any other things that McCurdy gives direct stories or information about.
Geraldo Perez is right to be concerned about BLP, but overstates the importance of the ViacomCBS "clearing" Schneider of sexual misconduct: their process is not transparent, accountable, democratic or a legal process. It does not indicate that no evidence exists, but—even if we take ViacomCBS as reliable for press releases about their safeguarding procedures—that none was presented to ViacomCBS. But moreover, it should be clear to everyone in the year 2022 that the television industry has widespread normalisation of sexual violence, covers up such behaviour, and that children are victims to this culture. It is not conforming to NPOV to deny coverage of what a wealth of reliable sources are focused on. Additionally, I think Geraldo Perez wants to have it both ways, saying that claims of criminality can't be mentioned per BLP but claims of non-criminal events (e.g. the bikini photo) can't be mentioned because they're not crimes. — Bilorv (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
McCurdy's comments don't support sexual misconduct either and no legal actions were taken to charge him with that based on any of the allegations made, hers included. We don't have anything that wouldn't be considered libel to support asserting or even alluding to that in any article. McCurdy didn't like him and didn't want to interact with him is the gist of her comments. What happened to other people and the industry at large isn't sufficient justification to include potential defamatory content in this article. The non-criminal events were just that, non-criminal. The bikini photo, as an example, is a trivial event spun to look bad. They wanted a picture of her in clothing appropriate to wear in public and that would be appropriate in a scene on a children's TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't support including the allegation about the bikini incident: not all the secondary sources note it (WaPo, Vanity Fair, and Buzzfeed News do not) and the New York Times does not directly associate this incident with "the Creator". If the $300,000 payout offer is mentioned, it should cite the Washington Post as a source because that article directly associates the payout with "the Creator" (McCurdy said she was told that Nickelodeon would offer her a $300,000 "thank-you gift" if she agreed to never talk publicly about her experiences at the network, specifically in relation to the behavior of "The Creator." "This feels to me like hush money," McCurdy wrote she said at the time. She turned it down on the spot.). Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The confidentiality payout was offered by the network, not Schneider. That is on the network. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of this issue here due to the discussion that is still on going and the information added still affected the issues here. In addition, I saw this issue was added to the Nickelodeon page and considering we don't even talk about issues other crew members have had I believe this issue shouldn't be added there as well. Right now the only places that seem to be okay to add this is McCurdy's and the iCarly 2007 page. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
None of the concerns that have been raised about including the information in this article are relevant to other articles, so the conversation that we're having here should not serve as a reason to remove content anywhere else. --Jpcase (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The issue still stands with the Nickelodeon page as her book or other sources do not mention Nickelodeon. Plus it is an article about Nick itself and not it's treatment towards children. If we need to bring up discussion on yhr Nickelodeon page and iCarly page we can. This issue fits best for the iCarly and Zoey 101 pages.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Her book and the sources do mention Nickelodeon. Numerous times. The network's treatment of its employees is highly relevant to any article about the network itself, and omitting such information when significant coverage can be displayed would generally be a serious violation of WP:NPOV. --Jpcase (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This is still is WP:OR because we would be making a conclusion not directly stated in the source.In addition adding this is still a violation WP:BLP, in addition the sources that are used are not WP:RS. This issue needs other users to give there inputs. Discussing on the Nickelodeon page maybe best and bring other users in. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The information added to the other articles is not OR and says nothing that isn't directly stated in the sources. Putting aside the fact that two highly reputable publications - Buzzfeed News and Vox - have explicitly identified Schneider as "the creator", the content that you removed from the Nickelodeon page did not itself make any such identification. If you feel that it would be a BLP violation to add information about the allegations to other articles, even without naming Schneider, then you need to explain your reasoning, as throughout this entire conversation, no other editor has expressed such a viewpoint. --Jpcase (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Not only this is a BLP violation to include on other page. The Nickelodeon page isn't justified to have it. There have been other issues the network has had that crew or cast have had accusations with Nickelodeon. Just including it because of Dan isn't justify it's own section. I am fine including it on the Zoey 101 article as it already is stated that the actress had issues from the show. If we decide to include it on Nickelodeon I feel that the entire history of the accusations would need to be covered and not just Dan. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
As I've already said, the Nickelodeon article does not identify Schneider as "the creator" and frames the allegations as a pervasive issue at Nickelodeon that went beyond Schneider. If you are aware of further allegations that are not already included in that article and can provide reliable sources, then please do so. --Jpcase (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
With the exception of one passage where he is named Dan, he is not named. But he is described to a tee, including events that align with allegations made and actions taken in regards to Schneider. If I wrote a book and only called Bill Clinton "America's 42nd president" and never used the name "Bill Clinton," did I ever write anything about Bill Clinton? Aresef (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Schneider/Archive_1&oldid=1191083221"