Talk:Ricky Schroder

User:Jaydoggmarco is adding specific categories to various individuals in an effort to smear them. Across two different accounts, he has been warned numerous times not to baselessly add people to the categories of "conspiracy theorist" or "anti-vaccination activist". The sources that were provided were very slanted and do not take into account that Schroder is not regularly protesting or engaging in anti-vaccination activism. One comment expressing his opinion, and a run-in at Costco does not make him a full blown activist. It is unencyclopedic to state otherwise and could come off as an attack on the person the article is about. Please refrain from posting this category here unless Schroder engages in ACTUAL activism and hard sources can back it up. Thank you! TJD2 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional notes: One of the sources reads and I quote: "Billboard has reached out to a rep for the actor to confirm his attendance on Tuesday and hadn't heard back at press time." It has a picture of what could be Ricky Schroder at a protest outside the Foo Fighters concert venue, but it has not been confirmed. That said at this time, the Billboard source is speculative and void. TJD2 (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Jaydoggmarco please engage on the TP rather than continuing to revert. You need to address TJD2's points. This has become an edit war (edits wars don't have to involve 3RR violations) and it will be reported if it continues. Thank you. ~~~~ Lard Almighty (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU! It is also User:Calton and who is now reverting my edits as well. They are also wikihounding me and reverting my edits to unrelated topics as well. I want to report the conduct but there is no section under ANI for wikihounding. This has become insane, and no discussion has occurred. Also on a side note out of the last eleven edits Jaydoggmarco has done, NINE of them are reverting my edits! [|See for yourself.]TJD2 (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Lard Almighty TJD2 has no constructive points to address, As a matter of fact he's been warned repeatedly on his talk page to stop his disruptive editing. He's the one who's engaging in edit warring. ^[1] Jaydoggmarco (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but coming to the TP even just to say that shows that you are at least willing to engage, and that is always a good thing! Lard Almighty (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:OLDVERSION, before making a contentious change you have to discuss on the talk page. YOU were the one who made the change, and giving me false warnings does not change the fact that you did not address any of my points nor did you even attempt to discuss your change. YOU are the one violating WP Policy, and I am just gatekeeping the article.TJD2 (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

They are also wikihounding me and reverting my edits to unrelated topics as well. I want to report the conduct but there is no section under ANI for wikihounding.

Bullcrap. If you really had a case, you'd have made it: ANI is precisely the place for reporting "wikihounding", your excuses notwithstanding. You already know what they going to tell you to do, and you also know they will also examine your own behavior.

Oh, and "baselessly" and "slanted sources" -- even assuming the latter excuse is true -- are contradictory: if it has sources, it's not baseless, pretty much by definition. Throwing up random Bad Words isn't particularly convincing, nor has your opinion that the category shouldn't exist been accepted, and your attempts to make an end-run around that by emptying the category aren't going well, either. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Your baseless reverting without addressing any of my arguments also is not going well. You STILL haven't told me why you feel Rick Schroder is an anti-vaccination activist when he has only spoken about his thoughts on the Covid-19 vaccine. Is he against MMR? Tenes? How about Heppatitis? No? Then he is not an anti-vaccination activist. My thoughts on the category of covid conspiracy theorists category is completely separate from the issue on this talk page but I will say I am not alone in my thoughts on that.TJD2 (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

If he is opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine then that makes him anti-vaccine, It also makes him a conspiracy theorist since opposition to the vaccine is not based on science. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

If he is opposed to the covid-19 vaccine that makes him against all vaccines? Did you really just say that??? That is just as silly as saying if somebody doesn't like Justin Bieber they are anti-music. TJD2

TBH, it doesn't matter what anyone "thinks". What matters is what reliable sources say. Billboard is a reliable source, so removing it is not helpful (to be charitable). And two reliable sources on the article refer to Schroder as an "anti-vaxxer", which is sufficient to include the category. Even if you discount the Billboard ref because it doesn't 100% confirm that the photo is of Schroder (even though he had spoken out against the Foo Fighters' policy and so could be assumed to be supporting the demo even if he wasn't there), NME, the NY Post and a bunch of others also describe him as an anti-vaxer. Some also refer to him as a conspiracy theorist. So I really don't see any effort to "smear" Schroder here, but simply to record what multiple reliable sources state. User:TJD2, I really suggest you move on as this is a "battle" you are not going to win. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The tag should be removed. I raised a related question recently on Masem's talk page []. I see two problems with the anti-vax activist tag in this case. First, there is zero evidence that he is an activist. Expressing one's opinion on social media doesn't rise to the level of "activist". Second, I think we need to distinguish between those who may be nervous about the Covid vaccines vs anti-vax in general. The anti-vax activist tag is contentious so it should only be placed when it is undisputed per BLP. Springee (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

""There is zero evidence that he is an activist." You mean except for the photo of him at a anti-vaccination rally and the numerous comments he's made on social media against covid-vaccines, Fucking please, If a person is nervous about covid vaccines they are anti-vaccine and misinformed. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If one attends antivaxxer rallies, then one is indeed an antivaxxer activist. Zaathras (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ludicrous. I attended a political rally once. Does that make me a political activist? George W. Bush was a cheerleader in college. Does he belong in Category:American cheerleaders. Reread WP:COPDEF: not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization. Even things people are most known for don't always get categorized, which is why Mark Hamill isn't in Category:Actors who were in Star Wars. Obsessive categorizers are confusing verifiability with definingness. Many verifiable things celebrities do don't even belong in an encyclopedia article per WP:PROPORTION and WP:VNOTSUFF, let alone highlighted by a category. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this. However - as I said, it doesn't matter what we think or what our views are, It matters what reliable sources say. Plenty of RS describe Schroder as an anti-vaccination activist (and a conspiracy theorist). I also think it has become what he is most famous for since he was a child actor and his NYPD Blue role. I don't think anyone can argue that he is not using his profile to campaign for right-wing causes, whether it is election conspiracy theories, Rittenhouse, resistance to Covid regulations, including vaccination scepticism, etc. It is all he is in the news for at the moment, and I don't see him stopping any time soon. That is why I think the category is valid. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, He's been more outspoken about his support for conspiracy theories and right-wing causes since he stopped acting in 2016, He's more notable now for his views and activism than he is for his currently non-active acting career. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not ludicrous at all, and your mania over this topic is getting extremely tiring, especially now that sadly coupled with the Whataboutism arguments. Sources have noted Schroder's antivax involvement, so he goes into the category. Simple as that. Zaathras (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Also curious that AnimalParty is pushing for category removal in this article while adding the cat to another article. Zaathras (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The body of the article does not make the case that he is an activist. This is especially important since wp:NONDEFINING says to be included it must be a defining characteristic not just something they said/did. Springee (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It most certainly does make the case, if one has an eye for how things work today. This isn't 1969, a protest or "activism" isn't just hippies singing in a park and marching down the street with placards. Schroder has hundreds of thousands of followers across various social media platforms. Not to mention the millions of views by follower and non-follower alike. When he posts himself harassing a Costco employee over the mask mandate, that is activism. When he berates and calls for a musician to be assaulted, because said musician required attendees to mask up, that is activism. 2021, things have changed. Zaathras (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The text of the article doesn't make that case and we must base the tag on what is in the article. While the Costco mask issue may be anti-vax related it is not inherently related. Many people were anti-mask mandates long before the vaccine was an option. Additionally, many people are opposed to these things not because they are anti-vax or anti-mask but because they feel it's authoritarian. That doesn't make them anti-vax even if those groups have overlap. This becomes one of the problems with a category that is very subjective. Springee (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I say again, it is the sources that say he is anti-vax, not us. That is all that matters on Wikipedia. We may personally disagree, but our own views don't matter. Multiple RS label Schroder as such and we should write the article based on what the sources say. The ariticle could easily be expanded once the protection ends to add more detail, including his protesting of Biden's innauguration. In fact, I would suggest that his right-wing activities merit a section of their own at this stage. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. Let the dust settle. Schroder has a single verifiable recent Costco incident regarding masks, and a single verifiable recent appearance outside a concert along with vaccine protesters (and he called Dave Grohl a "punk"). A few sources like Variety and Billboard apparently broke the story, and countless click-bait churnalism sites amplified the news spike. He may be against all vaccines. He may be against COVID vaccines. He may be okay with vaccines but against government mandates. I don't know. But I maintain that even though some sources like the reliably biased Salon.com outright label Schroder "anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist", the high bar for labeling someone with the category "anti-vaccination activist" as a defining trait is not met here. The 10-year test applies to categories as well. Schroder is also an avid outdoorsman who enjoys fishing and hunting, and "made the news" when some Instagram fans found out that he likes to hunt.. He does not however belong in Category:American hunters. Sources do not as of yet commonly nor consistently define Schroder as being an anti-vaccination activist (per WP:COPDEF and WP:CATDEF), rather some did for a few days very recently. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet you added Jon Stewart to the category because of a answer he gave in a interview (And unlike Schroder, Stewart hasn't gone to anti-vax protests, hasn't opposed vaccines and steps to stop the pandemic). Your reasoning is very flawed and biased. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ack, you got me there. In case there is any doubt, that was a fully intentional, though admittedly ill-advised, joke to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the subjectivity of the categories and how capriciously they are applied. People on this discussion page and several others are of the view that a single recent event wherein someone verifiably espouses untruths, or perpetuates misinformation, is sufficient to label someone as an "activist" or "conspiracy theorist". I think that is simply unwarranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This article confirms Schroder was at the protest. ^[2] Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Verifiabilty is not the same as definingness, per WP:NONDEF. Again see WP:COPDEF. Not everything mentioned in an article warrants categorization, even if it gets a few days of worldwide press. Do you think Schroder should be placed in American hunters? Einstein played violin and Obama plays basketball, and neither are found in Violinists or Basketball players. Note: anti-vax is not the same as anti-vax activist. Looking beyond WP:RECENTISM, news-spikes and op-eds of the day, if Schroder continues to become prominently known for anti-vaccine activism (e.g. organizing rallies and campaigns, holding press conferences, etc.) rather than just having anti-vaccine or questionable vaccine-related views, snipping at celebrities on social media, signing petitions, showing up at rallies, etc. then I would have no problem with the category being applied. I recognize that every one in the world (including journalists, and especially Wikipedians) is a little on edge regarding anything vaccine or coronavirus-related right now. That means we should be especially restrained and vigilant about reflexively labeling things or giving them undue prominence. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A reminder that this discussion was initiated by an editor who wishes to remove the category, not add it. As such, status quo ante bellum, it shall remain in place while the discussion continues. Zaathras (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Quamvis dicas, non fit. The record shows there has never been consensus for the category, and status quo was in fact its absence. It was added on 19:33, 16 June 2021 by Jaydoggmarco, and objected to within 24 hours by IP 141.126.156.55, which prompted a back-and-forth edit war +–+–... before being edit protected at 19:03, 17 June 2021 (without the category), after which Jaydoggmarco restored it only to be reverted by TJD2 on 18 June 2021, who then initiated this Talk discussion. 3 weeks later (11 July), Jaydoggmarco restored the category without comment, having not responded to the Talk page, triggering another edit-war, joined by User:Calton, who both added it repeatedly before engaging in discussion. The category was in place when the article was fully locked for 7 days, but the fact that the flip-flop was frozen for a week in "flop" rather than "flip" is not consensus. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Notifying participants in the above history lesson: @Zaathras, Jaydoggmarco, 141.126.156.55, TJD2, Calton, Springee, Lard Almighty, and Drill it:. Is my account incorrect? Let's not misrepresent or fabricate notions of consensus or status quo. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history this appears to have been first added mid June and disputed almost continuously since. That would mean it's never had consensus for inclusion. Additionally, per WP:NOCON, "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.". That said, perhaps a RfC is the solution here. Springee (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Let me just say I find it VERY funny that Calton over at the page Democracy Now! [] says that the burden of proof on those that wish to include (factually false per Wikipedia Policy), but over on this page is arguing that we need consensus to remove. A consensus must be reached for those who want to make a change, regardless of whether the change is to include or exclude content. That is the policy.TJD2 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

He has become very outspoken about religious beliefs in recent years and is often quoting bible verses online. https://www.foxnews.com/video/6346954825112 https://www.instagram.com/rickyschroder?igsh=ZHdtZTFob3R1b2x2 69.145.59.210 (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)