Talk:Jeff Sneider

Split "Career" and "Controversies"

Frankly, this guy has more controversies to his name than a successful career, with his most recent bout of stupidity involving threats against Inde Navarrette, resulting in most outlets, both professional and informal, removing him as a verified source (something I've been telling Wikipedia editors to do for a long, long time...). As such, I think his "Career" sub-cat should be split off into a "Controversies" one, or at minimum renamed "Career and Controversies" because, again, the number of controversies he has to career highlights is like 4 to 1. ~2026-44289-48 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. Unless significant, of these "controversies" should be removed. They're not overall notable unless they had a significant impact on his career, such as ones which seemed to have instigated him being sacked from various websites. If it's just social media kerfuffle over a stupid tweet or some feud with a celebrity it shouldn't be included. IMO the Sydney Sweeney casting and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-verse stories should be removed. Verlaine76 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Significant coverage of a journalist's reporting should absolutely be included. It's rare enough to get secondary reporting of media people, so we should be taking advantage of those sources and not sanitising bios. There's no compelling BLP reason. That said, a separate "Criticism" section isn't warranted - they're magnets for NPOV violations as they implicitly exclude positive or neutral reception. Fences&Windows 22:00, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah, a "Controversies" section is a real big WP:NOCRIT NPOV issue, and implementation across the body is proper. This guy Jeff Sneider is objectively a controversial person, and in the same way that when you're in a barnyard, you're gonna find cows outside, when you have a controversial person, there's gonna be a lot of controversies. All at once, all of the sites he's been employed at have all been given WP:DUEWEIGHT in their coverage. There's no issue here. BarntToust 00:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I think your most recent edits are more than sufficient! My suggestion was an oversimplification, so kudos for going the extra mile. FatalErrorDetected (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I concur and endorse the article's present structural flow. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeff Sneider/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 01:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk · contribs) 11:17, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust and Trailblazer101: I'll be less active in the GA review from now until Friday for studies, I hope you can be patient with me and understand. Thanks for your help and support in this review. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem, no rush. My own editing schedule is atypical if not flexible. Whenever earliest convenient for you. BarntToust 17:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries Brynn! Take all the time you need and thank you for your collaboration on this one! I just did another copyedit and expansion with a third-party source covering some more details on Sneider's response to the Navarrette controversy in his newsletter which also covered some of the first-party cited material, addressing some of your concerns below. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm back now, and I'm going to pick up the momentum with the references check. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 19:58, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion and progress

Prose check

• Since the site's founder Harry Knowles exceeded the 190-pound weight limit, Sneider fought in the tournament despite not having reviewed one of Boll's films—Sneider figured that since Ain't it Cool was known for criticizing Boll, the director had them in mind. Sneider considered himself disadvantaged because he smoked, has asthma, did not jog, and "can't have sex for more than five minutes at a stretch", and said that he was Boll's "highest-profile target". Sneider made it to round two of his match before being taken down twice by Boll, at which point his cornerman then threw in the towel.

• Since the site's founder Harry Knowles exceeded the 190-pound weight limit, Sneider fought in the tournament despite not having reviewed one of Boll's films—he figured that since Ain't it Cool was known for criticizing Boll, the director had them in mind; Sneider even said he was Boll's "highest-profile target". He considered himself disadvantaged because he never played in a boxing ring prior, has smoked, and has asthma. Before being taken down twice by Boll, he made it< progressed to the second round of his match, at which point his cornerman then threw in the towel. Sneider even said he was Boll's "highest-profile target". He considered himself disadvantaged, and he progressed to the second round of his match before being taken down twice by Boll, at which point his cornerman then threw in the towel.

Please change this because "can't have sex for more than five minutes at a stretch" was a joke made by Sneider, and not a serious consideration of him. "I don't jog" is like that but to a lesser extent, but I mainly removed it to replace it with his concern over having never boxed before, which is more noteworthy. Also I tightened some of the prose. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:38, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I was wondering if his jabs at his own supposed impotency was a little bit too, "eh"? Thanks for catching that. It's done. BarntToust 15:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You haven't done the other changes on here, you only removed the "can't have sex [...]" quote, please do the other changes in the green text or just copy-paste it. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Crud, I would have swore I made the changes with subsequent edits but the Wi-Fi where I'm at is so terrible, it probably didn't go through. Sorry about that should be through now. BarntToust 16:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any issues with changing "round two" to "the second round"? Because I noticed you didn't make that change, and I'm wondering if it's a boxing thing to call it round two. Thanks. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

No issues with using that phrase, it looks like it has indeed been changed from what I can see. BarntToust 16:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I made it myself. I forgot to tell you, sorry. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that! BarntToust 16:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Sneider has engaged in publicized disputes with several figures in Hollywood and the media, including allegations of harassment and threats by Deadline Hollywood founder Nikki Finke who rejected him from the publication; fights with his "nemesis" Deadline writer Mike Fleming Jr. over "exclusive" story credits; actress Sydney Sweeney over a reported role in the Johnny Depp film Day Drinker (2027) which she denied; claims about Sony scrapping the majority of Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse (2027) that drew the attention of producer Christopher Miller and composer Daniel Pemberton; and the representatives of actress Inde Navarrette over his criticized public offers to journalistically cover her and subsequently being ignored by the representatives.

Please break this up into multiple sentences. An entire paragraph just being semicolon-separated lists doesn't feel right. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I have tried to rewrite that but let me know if I can do better. BarntToust 15:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

This is good. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I also boldly changed the destination of the "threw in the towel" redirect. I feel like now the boxing paragraph is all good. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:00, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: Thanks for being transparent. Also thank you for the copy editing! In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 06:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• At the beginning of April 2013, he rejoined TheWrap to take over their Deal Central column, covering casting and deals.

Saying that he's covering deals after saying he's reprising a Deal Central column feels redundant, see Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment. Also, "to take over" sounds a bit too informal. I was fine with "threw in the towel" because that's professionally used boxing language, but I suggest you change "to take over" with to reprise or to resume his role in. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 06:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Sneider later in 2010 and 2011 allegedly staked out Finke's apartment to find a photograph of her, eventually running a college yearbook photo on TheWrap in a campaign called 'Mission: Take Down Nikki'.

I have changed "running" to "circulating". — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 13:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

done BarntToust 20:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what "running" means in this context. I also think it may be too informal Please change it to a better word. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 12:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Sneider had posted an exclamatory reaction of "OH MY GOD!!!!" on her last day of work in June 2013.
• On Finke's last day of work in June 2013, Sneider had posted a reaction in all caps reading "Oh my God!!!!"

I made the sentence read a bit better, while also removing the word "exclamatory" as it is redundant when next to the reaction itself. (EDIT: I did the edit myself.) In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 12:29, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I made a slight tweak to say "an exclaimed reaction" to emphasize the point here. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 13:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I still think that's redundant. We see four exclamation marks and the prose says it's all caps, so it would be pointless to say it is exclaimed just to emphasize a point. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just refine it to state, "Sneider has posted an exclaimed reaction" because the exact contents of the tweet are not inherently noteworthy. We already include his other more prominent tweets, so I think explaining this in wikivoice helps convey the point more clearly. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten it like so, let me know what y'all think. BarntToust 14:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

This is better, thanks. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I boldly made these edits. Let me know if you have any gripes with it. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: Thanks for being transparent. Also thank you for the copy editing! In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 06:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC) In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Sneider's claimes in September 2024 that Sony scrapped the majority of the animated film Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse (2027) due to creative reasons and would not be released before 2027 forced producer Christopher Miller to deny this report on social media, with composer Daniel Pemberton disputing the accuracy of Sneider's internet reporting.
• In September 2024, Sneider claimed that Sony scrapped the majority of the animated film Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse (2027) due to creative reasons and would not be released before 2027. Producer Christopher Miller denied this report on social media, with composer Daniel Pemberton disputing the accuracy of Sneider's internet reporting.

This change splits an overly long sentence into two for readability. Plus, it would tighten some of the prose. I also thought the word "forced" felt a bit biased so I removed it. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

done that BarntToust 19:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Responses to his post were negative, "creepy, unprofessional and inappropriate" according to PinkNews.
• Responses to his post were negative, with comments describing it as "creepy, unprofessional and inappropriate" according to PinkNews.

The red text could be misread as saying that the responses were creepy, unprofessional and inappropriate even though the responses are actually criticizing the post for that. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

this one done BarntToust 19:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm now done my check for criterion 1, and I placed it on hold. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions not yet done: 1, 2 and 3. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

should be good now, let me know! BarntToust 20:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

It's all good. This is a pass! In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 20:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Passed (previously On hold for) criterion 1, which is about being well-written.

References and spot check

Source check, no result yet

Passed

• Citation 1 - WIRED
• Citation 2 - The Observer. Editorial guidelines look promising.
• Citation 3 - Collider, no WP:VALNET concerns here as this article was written before Valnet's acquisition of the site
• Citation 4 - Variety
• Citations 5 and 6 - X (good understanding of WP:ABOUTSELF here)
• Citation 7 - TheWrap
• Citation 8 - LinkedIn (see discussion and rationale below)
• Citation 9 - TheWrap - Dates are source by the LinkedIn source, and all other info is sourced here
• Citation 12 - Lamag.com - While there is neither an RSN or a reader-facing editorial policy, its About Us shows that it's a renowned source, but the real kicker for inclusion is that the author of the specific article used in this GA nom has their own Wikipedia page, and is an expert Retracting Pass status for now as spot-check is in the works

On hold

• Citation 3 - Collider. See WP:VALNET, it's only a marginally reliable source. If you got any better sources then please use those instead, and use attribution for any potentially controversial information Turns out that specific Collider article was written before Valnet acquired the site
• Citation 7 (a-g) - LinkedIn. I think using it is appropriate within WP:LINKEDIN but we should remove all instances of this source apart from the last, since those are controversial things that therefore violate WP:ABOUTSELF, and other sources are already covering them just fine. The source URL and title should be changed to the specific LinkedIn post where he announced the InSneider. These sources are only used to cite the dates of when he was employed where, and these employments are all expanded upon by RS, so it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF
• Citation 13 - Buzzfeed. See WP:BUZZFEED, it's only a marginally reliable source
• Citation 25 - Primetimer. This editorial policy looks promising, but the site being acquired by Sportskeeda, a generally unreliable source is a cause for concern. I seriously think you should remove the Primetimer source and any information derived from it, and use the WP:ABOUTSELF sources to verify The InSneider instead

Failed

• Citations 10-11 - AdWeek. Has no editorial policy, only a few disparate editorial guidelines and plus the writer does not see to be a staff member. Everything on there is cited to the Variety source so I think it should be a swift and easy removal.
• Citations 14-15 - Adweek. Falls into the same issues as other uses of Adweek, except unfortunately there are no good sources covering the specific dispute with Mike Fleming
• Citation 16 - Falls under WP:NEWYORKPOST, so no. Either remove coverage of the specific controversy covered because this GA nom so far has no good sources for it, or find better sources
• Citation 25 - Instagram. Using a private Instagram account for an announcement of the InSneider is a bad idea. We already have a LinkedIn source saying the exact same thing. Source falls under WP:ABOUTSELF
  • With the lack of any actual press coverage of his newsletter announcement and no available LinkedIn post, I suggest simplifying it by stating he founded his newsletter in November 2023, with no date specified, and citing that to his LinkedIn profile, thus eliminating the Instagram ref. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 09:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
    • Agreed. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Citation 32 - International Business Times. WP:IBTIMES is generally unreliable, so we should remove the source and replace it with better ones source removed

I have found no actual LinkedIn post of his announcement. The earliest post is thus one from two months after. I have seen LinkedIn used to verify general, factual information about the subject. I don't see how this is cited to contentious material, considering it is used to verify when he founded his newsletter, his graduation year and degree, which his Variety profile already cited in the article covers, along with when he joined Ain't It Cool News and Variety. This Wrap article, also already cited, states "A round of editorial layoffs is reportedly looming at Variety. Sneider had previously worked at the trade newspaper but was cut in a round of layoffs in 2009. He returned to the trade two years ago after working at TheWrap." That can be used to cover the timing of his Variety and Wrap tenures. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 09:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. However, I still believe it would be more appropriate to remove all the LinkedIn cites expect for the last one as there are better sources covering the same things. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hold on, no, you've understood this LinkedIn thing all wrong. We're using LinkedIn not to verify any of the substance of his controversies, just only using LinkedIn to verify the dates of his employment at the various publications down to the month and year. The third party sources in several places do not all provide specific start and ending dates of his employment at various places; some provide end dates, some provide start dates, but not all.

Using LinkedIn which is his verified page, helps organize for factual reference. The starting and ending dates of his employment at these various publications are not a contentious claim, unlike various other content related to him. Anytime you see LinkedIn source inline cited to a piece of text that goes into other detail, there's another third party source that also mentions those other details of his employment. BarntToust 15:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

In short, the other sources that you are seeing that are covering "the same thing" do not actually cite the explicit starts and ending dates of his employment terms, and the LinkedIn source is doing a valuable job at keeping things on record. BarntToust 15:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hold on Brynn, i might have screwed up the reference link. When you click on the url to the LinkedIn citation, it's supposed to take you directly to the Experience subsection of his page. That's where you're going to see the year and monthly recorded dates of his employment, which is the specific aspect that LinkedIn is there to cite. It looks like it works for me but I don't know if it messes up for non registered users. Anywho that's the only thing LinkedIn is there to cite. BarntToust 15:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I understand; thanks for clearing that up. I'll keep the LinkedIn on hold since it doesn't appear to link to an "Experiences" like you described. Also, I'm worried that since there is no official announcement post for the InSneider, saying he released it in a certain month might be original research from random LinkedIn posts. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong and the Experiences section in fact does say when he made the InSneider. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the instagram source functions similar to linkedin and exactly as an ABOUTSELF SPS that makes no claims that anybody could consider contentious, and it functions to clear up this particular issue of semantics of "announced" or not. I think i'm going to add it back in and ask for your opinion. BarntToust 16:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

A big concern is that it's privated. If you can get an archived URL of it, that would be good. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

actually no i'm not because his instagram is private now. i'm just going to reword it so the semantics work. BarntToust 16:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

wait, I Do think I have an archive BarntToust 16:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You will see now that the ghost archive link is functioning to see that source BarntToust 17:03, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean like the Wayback Machine In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:03, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

That's good too, thanks. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

yeah, Wayback isn't always good at archiving social media. Alternative archives like Ghostarchive and Megalodon are helpful in cases like so. BarntToust 17:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Because LinkedIn works on my end and the link has /experience section on it, i'm confused as to why it doesn't bring you the same place I'm seeing. Do you have a registration on there? Does it just take you to his homepage instead of the specific section? You might try the archive link if you don't have a registration. BarntToust 17:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust and Trailblazer101: I see you've made significant improvements to the citing for the InSneider, so that's good. But unfortunately the LinkedIn source still does not take me to the experiences section. I tried appending /experiences to the URL myself, but I was stopped by an authwall. The archived URL in the citation also stops me via authwall, unfortunately. So I'll still keep the LinkedIn source on hold. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 19:58, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

As long as we have somebody else independent who is registered for LinkedIn and thus has access, they can double check for you. I might know somebody who can do that for us, if you don't find somebody by tomorrow I will reach out to them and ask them if they can verify. If Trailblazer101 is also able to check that it works on his end, I'd appreciate that as well! BarntToust 22:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The URL in the citation does link and direct users directly to the Experience subpage on the LinkedIn profile so long as you are signed in to an account. Otherwise, it will require authentication. Unfortunately, it appears that LinkedIn's servers are preventing archive sites from bypassing their authenticator messages, something that I have experienced other sites doing more recently. As such, Wayback, Ghost Archive, and Megalodon are unable to actually archive the given citation or Sneider's profile entirely, though archives are only recommended to prevent link rot, not required. As long as users are able to WP:VERIFY the contents (even though it requires an account), the citation should be acceptable. I have previously been able to archive individual LinkedIn posts after trial and error, though it is not working anymore as intended. Even archive.today (while blacklisted) cannot bypass the authentication requirement for the Experience subpage, and only partially archives contents of the main profile. It's admittedly irritating, but unless the cites provided the specific time frames of his tenures, it may just have to do. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The question is, if somebody does put in their LinkedIn authentication to Internet Archive or Ghost or Megalodon, is the information still saved in the archive and then can they see it? Anyhow, I might recommend manual screenshots and manual archive uploads on Internet Archive if there is an issue. Maybe I'll look into that. BarntToust 23:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The archive sites only pull up what they can readily access. There is no feasible way of authenticating an archived webpage because the servers have no active session to communicate with. It is the double-edged sword of archiving and sites learning to bypass it. Uploading a manual screenshot archive is a feasible alternative, though from my experience, they may tend to be of lesser quality once you zoom in because you have to zoom out to capture the full page manually. I would be weary of including any personal account identifiers in any web capture, should you go that route, because once you upload a manual archive to Wayback, I don't think there is a way to delete it. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: Please email me screenshots of the /experiences section of the LinkedIn page using Wikipedia's email system, so I can check if there is any original research. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:13, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll get on that momentarily. BarntToust 13:58, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

By the way, sorry for not saying this earlier, but please @BarntToust: ping me when you're done. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:04, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@Brynn Who Likes Editing: I'll need you to give me an email reply really quickly so I can then reply again with the screenshots, due to the way Wikipedia email system works. Thank you! BarntToust 14:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't reveal my email address. It's my school email and it has my deadname, last name, and where I study. Please send me the screenshots at jeyalec476@ncleap.com instead (it's from temp-mail.org) and I'll get to them. Ping me when you're done, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: pinging you so you see my comment quicker. Thanks. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:51, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@Brynn Who Likes Editing: check your inbox, thanks! BarntToust 19:45, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get it in time and se the temporary email deleted it. What time are you free tomorrow to send an email? I'm free from 11 AM through 4 PM EET tomorrow to receive. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 21:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I'll do you one better, here's a link to Google Document that I've put everything where you and anyone else can at convenience check on the contents of the LinkedIn page. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q5ptjn5RvppEPpZsxVLoFW4bidBiDuZs29OFexLmoAI/ BarntToust 23:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it and all the dates are sourced. Thanks. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@BarntTroust: "from Needham, Massachusetts" is really vague, is it born from or was raised in? It's cited to only the Collider source (check the spot check, it's on hold because of WP:VALNET concerns) and that source even said "hails from" which is even more ambiguous. Either find a RS, WP:ABOUTSELF source or just remove this. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:59, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

back in the day, in 2018 when that particular source was posted, Collider was not owned by Valnet. That was Complex Networks. No WP:VALNET concern there. BarntToust 14:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, well, in that case it's an appropriate source; however, I still think that "from Needham, Massachusetts" needs clarification with another source because right now the wording from the source given (Collider, "hails from") is really ambiguous. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:52, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The only other source that I can find is the Variety profile and that's exactly the same wording. "From" is not an explicit term, sure, but it's not overbearingly vague either and at least in a general meaning imparts that he had an early life in Needham. BarntToust 15:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Then it's fine, thanks. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 15:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Otherwise, the Primetimer source is something I'm going to ask @Trailblazer101 about, because I think that despite association with Sportskeeda, there might be potential for an exceptional use here. Most all what Primetimer was reporting on (and specifically what is cited in this article) chalks up to summary of his response written in his newsletter (which is a paywalled source, no less). Otherwise this is my two cents on the case for that source. BarntToust 14:48, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

while alleging that it had sent some of its female clients to former film producer and convicted sex offender Harvey Weinstein I don't think we can really make an exceptional use here, the material is too contentious.

@Trailblazer101: Please can you help us on this matter? If it becomes inconclusive then I may raise this at WP:RSN. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:22, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

We definitely cannot use what Sneider has written about CAA and Weinstein to cite encyclopedic content as if it were an absolute, verified fact. It is a bold allegation from a source that right now is acting as an unreliable narrator in a very heated context of personally involved controversy. We should not present it as if it were fact, but I think that what Trailblazer101 has pared down to basically a mention of Sneider claiming that he has beef with CAA because of the otherwise well documented association with Weinstein that other, better sources have previously established. Keeping it not as explicit keeps it from veering into a point of concern. BarntToust 19:05, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

for its alleged blacklisting practices and association with Harvey Weinstein the Primetimer source doesn't mention blacklisting, that should be removed. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 19:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I have removed that part. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:38, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

chalks up to summary of his response written in his newsletter Then at that point we should cite the writing in his newsletter, that would be better than a source for contentious material of dubious reliability. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I have reduced the contentious material to provide a summary with a wikilink pointing to where it is more reliably contextualized at Creative Artists Agency § Practice of blacklisting, Harvey Weinstein, because that is the gist of what Sneider referred to in his newsletter. I had only included the material with the intention of trimming it later but didn't have time to circle back to it immediately, especially because I don't think we can take Sneider definitively for his word here, considering he has a tendency to over-exaggerate things and exhibits characteristics of an unreliable narrator when it comes to situations like this. The fact of the matter at hand is that Sneider used the CAA agent issue to call out the agency for its past bad behavior as a bargaining chip in the hopes of manipulating them into somehow giving him a job for his silence. That's my interpretation of it based on how Sneider and the Primetimer source described it. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:47, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Overall I myself am liking where that particular, peculiar piece of content is right now. As long as we don't run amok of anything too contentious, and represent the content of the matter fairly, it should be acceptable. Any thoughts from Brynn before we move on? BarntToust 19:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, IBTimes has been removed. The other sources should still cover all concerned info. BarntToust 00:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@BarntTroust and Trailblazer101: By the way, the collapsible reference check is also a spot check. Hopefully this can at least partially explain why it's taking as long as it is. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Not to worry. I am familiar with the process. Take all the time you need. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard about the use of Primetimer. I'll get back to talking about this source here when a result is reached there. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: Can you please show me where the claims cited to citation 12 are in the Lamag.com article? I would spot-check it myself but it's a rather long article, and I don't want to find it myself with a word processor like I did with citation 1. Please send this to me via Google Docs like you did with the LinkedIn source. Thanks for your time, and thank you for being patient with me. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 21:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and appended screenshots of the relevant material in LAMag to the same doc as LinkedIn. Let me know if I can do anything further. BarntToust 00:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

As for Adweek, the 47 year old trade publication, we can look at its corporate history to inform a quick assessment of its reliability. During the 2013 to 2014 period of which these concerned articles cited were written, the company was owned by Guggenheim Partners, the owners at the time of reliable sources The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard magazine. It stands to reason at the time it was reliable at least then; I have no idea about an assessment now, with the Shamrock era. BarntToust 00:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll spotcheck it shortly. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

As for WP:PAGESIX use on source sixteen, I think it passes the threshold on entertainment-related content. It is about the professional (not personal) part of entertainment (journalism), we clearly attribute claims/positions/actions Sneider and Fleming made, we don't use it to cite any EXTRAORDINARY claims about either party, and it is an extension of their "rivalry" or "feud" already well-documented by other sources like Observer (and there's also some information in LAMag about another "exclusive" story feud from back in the day as well). If there was any concern, there are also tweets embedded that are directly cited in that article too.

As for WP:BUZZFEED, we use it to briefly cite the fact that he had something outrageous to react for somebody he was entangled in controversy with, and there is a link to his tweet embedded in the source. BarntToust 00:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:PAGESIX says that [...] and Page Six are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews. Anything marginally reliable is not suitable for contentious claims at a GA level. This also applies to the Buzzfeed source. We don't need to cover a tweet Sneider made if there's no reliable sources to suggest that the tweet is worth covering. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Frankly the substance of the Page Six source does not veer into anything contentious, it represents the two cents of both sides in this professional dispute about journalistic credits (nothing personal or outrageous), and in the way that What the link that you cited said is actually It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Which is exactly what I have done, which should qualify them for use here. I maintain that the evaluation of Page Six is usable here, but I hear you about the relevance of the BuzzFeed source. BarntToust 18:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the BuzzFeed source because of concern above. BarntToust 18:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

= No comment on criterion 2, which is about being verifiable with no original research.

Miscellaneous check

I made an edit myself to the boxing paragraph, since I feel like it does go too much into detail. See Wikipedia:Summary style. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 15:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Prose is much tighter, thank you. BarntToust 18:15, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:49, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

and subsequently being ignored by the representatives does not seem all that important to be in the lead, (and might even fail NPOV since it may imply that Sneider is unimportant or pathetic (see criterion 4)). I suggest replacing it with a mention of him getting banned from the Marvel Studios subreddit, because that's a more noteworthy event. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@BarntToust: ping — In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

"and took issue with the representatives of actress Inde Navarrette over his criticized and unrequited public offers to journalistically cover her." Rewrote it so it doesn't sound so pointed. I don't think the stuff about the subreddit fits either. Let me know if i can do anything further. BarntToust 17:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The Marvel subreddit idea was simply a suggestion, if you wanted something else to be covered in the lead instead. I don't think that would've made the lead necessarily better either. Thanks for fixing the issue here, you did it well. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

= No comment on criterion 3, which is about being broad in its coverage.

= No comment on criterion 4, which is about being neutral, representing viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Edits to this page are good-faith and there are no major changes across the past few days. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 07:48, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Passed criterion 5, which is about being stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

There is no lead image. While I could not find any free lead images, it would be helpful to include a non-free lead image. Here's a link to his Collider bio, where you can extract the image and give clear copyright attribution.

Minor gripe, but the alt text for images are only the names of the people described. While this may seem okay, this is not useful as the footers already describe such. Please use |alt=Refer to footer In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:21, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The thing where the lead image does not come together, as long as the subject is still living and thus it is likely that a free use image can eventually be procured, we cannot yet resort to using a non free image. Usually it is after a subject dies, or in exceptional cases retreats permanently from the public eye, then we can consider using a non-free image because it is unlikely that one can ever happen in the future.

Otherwise, those alt tags are now modified as you said. BarntToust 16:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll mark criterion 6 as a pass for now unless someone finds a free image. I'll also do some light searching for one. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:46, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Just being transparent and stating here that BarntToust asked me as a courtesy to perform a copyedit of the article, which I have now done. I also reorganized the refs for the ease of readability in source editor. Everything else looks well-written and good to me! Nice work thus far! — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 06:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Passed (previously On hold for) criterion 6, which is about being illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio.