Talk:Emily Schrader

Dicussion

I've made some edits to remove what was promotional language on this article which has been constantly reverted by @Instant History to their preferred version of the page with an accusation of "disruption". Per WP:BLP, the content on the article needs to be cited to third-party reliable sources. Instant History's version re-introduces the claim that she graduated magna cum laude and calls her a "digital marketing expert" without citation. Their version also re-introduces typos like removing the "Us" from StandWithUs. Per WP:CYCLE, let's discuss. jwtmsqeh (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your last edit because what you removed is information about the subject's career, i.e. where she worked and what she did. There was also some information removed about mentions in top X lists, but I believe that's allowed on Wikipedia, at least I've seen it in hundreds of articles and included content like this myself for pages I've created or edited. I'm not seeing any MOS:PUFFERY or the like but if you think there is change the language but don't delete content. Note all the sources I see seem to be WP:RS, so if there are ones you feel aren't please state which ones. Nnev66 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nnev66 -- I think it would be easier if @Instant History (and you) didn't make a mass reversion of all my edits and instead discussed the ones you disagree with. The version you reverted away from actually has a few additional reliable sources added relative to the version it's being reverted to.

For example, some of my edits updated the article to reflect that she's married now. Do you guys object to that?

I did remove some puffery that wasn't sourced which you've now reintroduced to a BLP. Do you have a citation to substantiate that she graduated magna cum laude and that she's a "digital marketing expert"?

This line "Schrader is an activist in the campaign for social networks to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism" I don't actually object to very much but it's worth noting the second citation doesn't actually support it and I thought that my edit was more precise/stuck to what the source said: "In 2020, she helped organize an open letter urging Meta Platforms to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism." Do you object to that?

I removed "currently works for Ynet News" because neither citation provided actually says that. One is ynet publishing a press release stating that she's hosting a show and the other was YouTube. Where is the reliable source for that? Seems made-up or perhaps someone who works for her inserted that here. jwtmsqeh (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, actually my version still included her Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization of America's top list: "In 2023, she was listed as one of 18 "women to watch" by Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization of America." I cut the other one because it did not seem like it was significant coverage but would be happy to discuss if all my edits weren't summarily reverted.

Finally, the version you restored includes this claim: "She frequently commented on Middle Eastern affairs in English, Arabic and Persian" Do we have an actual reliable source for this? Because it seems like we're just doing our own research and adding this based on seeing her talk but I don't see any source saying that she "frequently commented" or specifying languages. jwtmsqeh (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks jwtmsqeh for giving more detailed insight into what you did and why. I reverted my reversion and I think a few things can be restored. Note you can add the "failed verification" template if a reference doesn't actually cite what is written. That allows the content to stay up and gives other editors a chance to check it out. I will restore anything that I think adds to the article and is properly cited. We can discuss if you still disagree. Nnev66 (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you @Nnev66 for you mediation in the dis-agreement I had with @Just want to make some quick edits here. Do not you think this sentence ''Schrader was named by Algemeiner as one of the 100 People Positively Influencing Jewish Life in 2022, and in 2023 as one of the 18 "women to watch" by Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization.'' better deserve to be at the top in the introduction part rather than being in the career section as it has notng to do with a career? Instant History (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Nnev66. Looks like the only thing you re-added was the Jewish Life 100 list? I still think that's more promotional than encyclopedic and not particularly notable to boot, it's a niche newspaper with a circulation of ~20000 picking 100 people to honor at a gala every year likely based on donations. That said, I am fine with the article as it stands. I would object to giving the lists more prominence.

@Instant History - I'm confused by your suggestion that inclusion on the lists have nothing to do with her career unless you have inside information? jwtmsqeh (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

let's differentiate recognition from career. She was recognized by algemeiner ... so is that fit to the career section? Should not it be at the top or in separate section like Recognition ? and what inside information are you talking about? Instant History (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m traveling this week so don’t have much time now. From my understanding, the lead paragraph should state just a high level overview of what the person does and why they are notable. A significant award may be noted in this section but I think the Algemeiner and Hadassah awards belong on the Career section or could be in a separate Awards and recognition section. I’d like to see a bit more content in the article but won’t have time to add before next week. I’ll address other points at that time. Nnev66 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it benefits readers to create a section for a paragraph that easily fits into another section. jwtmsqeh (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@ jwtmsqeh

For the one who studied your edits thoroughly like me can easily understand you are just a vandal who appeared here to fulfill one's purpose. Here I have few questions for you:

1. Why you manually reverted my messages to you in your talk page?
2. Regarding references, is not Jerusalem post reliable? or is it for you?
3. Regarding the images you removed on the page, where do you get that kind of reason ''This is not encyclopedic image'' ?

You just make one nice edit and then disrupt a lot more. I really see your struggle to remove the part that mentions her effort in the Iranian politics.

Instant History (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you reply to my points above? I pointed out multiple issues with the sourcing and you've ignored aside from simply reverting.

1 - I didn't want them there. Believe I'm allowed to do that.

2 - If she's a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, it is no longer an independent source.

3 - As I said in the edit summary, I don't think the images meet MOS:IMAGEREL. jwtmsqeh (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)