Talk:Jennette McCurdy

message: Based on this source, the first edit read:
"On August 18, 2016, it was announced that McCurdy had reached a deal with Canvas Media Studios that will allow her to develop and produce scripted projects across multiple media platforms."
My new version reads:
"In August 2016, McCurdy signed a deal to develop projects with digital production company Canvas Media Studios to further utilize her social media connections with fans."
My initial objection was to having McCurdy "develop and produce scripted projects across multiple media platforms" when the source says "working on projects that could live on multiple platforms." To be "developing and producing" is a leap from "working on" and saying the projects will be "across multiple media platforms" is a stretch from "could live on".
My initial re-write was semi-reverted with a comment that the headline says she is to "to Develop Scripted Projects With Digital Studio Canvas Media" in the headline. Headlines are not part of the article, they are written by an editor to grab attention and attempt to boil down a substantially longer story into a specified space. With those goals in mind, headlines often seem to say something other than what the article itself actually says. If McCurdy is actually going to be developing and producing (as in, credited as a "Producer"), the article would certainly say that. It does not. It is written from a press release on the deal, adds in some background on the company, speculates about "multiple platforms" (based on the company's history) and adds in a canned image.
Both of the statements (from McCurdy and the company) note her social media following so I added that to my newest version. As Canvas Media Studios is hardly Universal Studios, I added the description "digital production company".
The "announcement" (press release) likely came out within the past couple of days. The announcement is not the story ("it was announced"), the contract is the story. The date of the source is not necessarily the date the press release was issued in any case. If, 30 years from now, this contract has led to a sea change in the industry (ha!), no one will ask "When was the signing of that deal announced?" Someone conceivably would want to know when the deal was made. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On the headline Jennette did put it specifically on Instagram as seen here, I took that as her confirming that was what the deal was which is why I included what the headline said. She specifically highlighted it. - Mo2010</sup> 04:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: McCurdy linked to the story, Instagram displayed the story's headline. McCurdy didn't "specifically highlight" anything. Right now, it's just a development deal. If anything more comes of it, there will be more coverage in the future. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I agree with SummerPhD. It's just a headline. If it turns out she does play development and production roles in these projects, I'm sure more sources will pick that up. -- Irn (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvas Media Studios 

message: , I think we are safe to add in the sentence removed in this edit. The source used (Buzzfeed News) per the link you provided is still regarded as "Generally Reliable". Additionally The A.V. Club makes the same claim here, as does Insider, both of which are consider Generally Reliable, so those could be mentioned as well. Something along the lines of:  Cerebral726 (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for beginning this discussion. Although I consider Insider and AV Club more reliable than BuzzFeedNews (and they are identified as such at WP:RSP), I still have some concerns because those two sources use the phrases "seems to indicate" and "may have been referring to". I would like a consensus to add this material, and if it is added we clearly need to indicate that the sources are equivocal in naming Schneider. This is sensitive enough that WP:BLP calls for a higher standard for inclusion. But I respect a consensus if the Wikipedia community decides that it is appropriate. I prefer more than just one more opinion. I'm not opposed to immediately starting an RfC. Be careful that the RfC includes the equivocal wording from the sources; otherwise it would be a malformed RfC. If you prefer a different method of dispute resolution, I'm open to discussion. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any issues with using Buzzfeed News as a source. Although WP:RSP indicates that "some" editors believe that a certain amount of caution should be taken with the site's articles, there is still strong consensus that Buzzfeed News should be treated as a highly reliable source. --Jpcase (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: With other sources available, I don't think the Buzzfeed News source is a big issue at this point. The real issue is whether such speculation should be included at all in a BLP. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Buzzfeed News source is not equivocal in identifying Schneider as "the creator". So I do not consider this to be a matter of speculation. --Jpcase (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Two other sources are equivocal, and there's no reason BuzzFeed News should be considered more reliable. If this was about any issue other than a living person, including would be simpler. But this is a BLP issue, and it involves potentially defamatory content, which requires a higher standard on Wikipedia than simply providing one source while ignoring others. In any event, because I have challenged the edit, we need a consensus to include the information at all, and if it's included, to indicate that reliable sources are equivocal. Sundayclose (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

text: P.S. I just came across this article from Vox, which is also unequivocal in identifying Schneider as the creator. --Jpcase (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially with that Vox article, there is no reason not to lay out Dan Schneider as "The Creator". Something along the lines of: "While McCurdy never explicitly identifies "The Creator" in the memoir, both Buzzfeed News and Vox have identified "The Creator" as iCarly and Sam & Cat-creator Dan Schneider." Cerebral726 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We need more opinions to achieve a consensus, for two issues: should Schneider be named as The Creator, and if so should that identification be stated with equivocal wording? I don't mind setting up an RfC unless others prefer to wait. Sundayclose (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with an RFC if you think it is necessary and would like to set it up. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  This issue is being discussed with several Users on Dan's personal page here.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking into this and an RfC maybe a good idea for all angles. I have been trying to deal with the same issue by users adding it to the Nickelodeon page. However, I see it affects some of the same issues discussed here as well the Dan Schneider page as this has been an on going issue for months. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Creator identity 

message: The current photo in her infobox is 10 years old. Is there any way it could be replaced with an updated photo of her? Chocomint18 (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to link or upload a photo that is not under copyright. Wikipedia policies generally do not allow use of a copyrighted image of a living person in their bio article because there are serious legal consequences. 16:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost did this, but I'm not sure what modern photos would not be under copyright. She often posts photos of herself on Twitter and on her website, but I've assumed those are protected by copyright in some way. I'm not very knowledgeable about those things, so I don't know if there's any way to update the photo... Chocomint18 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  When in doubt, assume the image is under copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Unless you specifically see a notice that the image is available under Creative Commons or other free license, it very likely is under copyright. Even if she posts an image of herself, that alone does not make it a free image. Sundayclose (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article photo 

message: Her book is her current project, news, and accomplishment.  Readers and searchers will benefit from addition of these fun facts:
- her book has sold millions of copies.  Source: https://deadline.com/2023/02/jennette-mccurdy-signs-with-caa-1235252735/. the article mentions nearly 2 million copies 2 months ago.  it is much higher now internationally.
- her book has been on New York Times Bestseller list for months (it is still on there). Source: https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2023/04/23/combined-print-and-e-book-nonfiction/ Kimskey (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top update for the book 

message: McCurdy has stated repeatedly that she is no longer pursuing a music career. She even says so in memoir. Yet every time I cite it, the page reverts back to a version in which the intro lists her a singer. If Jennette McCurdy's own book isn't an authoritative enough source regarding her music career, then what is? Or are we just not citing books anymore? TheClubSilencio (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, per MOS:ROLEBIO, she is not primarily known for her singing career as much as the other 3. I agree it should state "former singer" if "singer" is included at all, but the best solution is to just remove that from the list. I do think  reverting you is being a little overzealous with the removal of a primary source. This seems like a textbook case of what is allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF, with McCurdy explicitly writing she is not a singer, a claim only about herself without being unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not shocked about reverting as I have seen this issue with this user several times. I don't have an issue with the source and agree former singer is indeed fine. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

text: With me or with ? Regardless, this discussion seems to have concluded. Have a lovely day. TheClubSilencio (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, fair point, I see now the reason for the quick reverts. Since this contribution seems to be fine, I will swap it back to former singer with the primary source added back in. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  She's No Longer a Singer