Talk:Forbes 30 Under 30

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Awards This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Magazines This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

I've rewritten the lead to explicitly state the number of annual honorees. This is sort of WP:OR but also sort of WP:CALC. My concern is that to do otherwise would leave the door open for misrepresenting the significance of the award. I have seen far, far too many Wikipedia articles which use press releases to just say so-and-so "was listed as one of Forbes 30 Under 30" without actually mentioning that there are far more than just 30 listed every year. Far too many promotional mentions do not actually mention which list is being cited. Again, this is arguably a bit WP:OR, but WP:NPOV would be damaged by leaving this info out. Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just revised a bit further--I don't object to saying the total number in the lead but I do think we need a source before we do. I'm not certain it's the case there's never overlap between lists (especially across regional editions) so the number might be lower. I think since we give the number of lists and how many people are on each, that's enough for people to ballpark it for adequate context without the WP entry committing to a specific unconfirmed figure.

Relatedly, I added a note clarifying that this summary refers to the most recent set of lists, as previously there were fewer. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, I hadn't thought of the overlap issue. I would like a source, but lacking that it was a bit much for me to try cram that number into the lead like that. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've axed the 'List of honorees' section. As a form of promotion, the list is frequently cited by press releases and passing mentions which totally fail to provide any meaningful context for what the list signifies. There's also the issue that by listing some famous names without listing the thousands of non-famous people, the article is implying that the award is more significant than it actually is. We simply cannot list every honoree, so we need a clearly defined and highly selective criteria. Even doing a spin-off per-year list article would be excessively long and of very little encylopedic value. If any neutral sources of real substance cite specific people as being good examples of what the award means, or the type of person who is honored, that could be evaluated. Otherwise a listing like this is doomed to be arbitrary. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, "neutral sources of real substance cite specific people as being good examples of what the award means, or the type of person who is honored" would be a good way to develop an honorees section if we were to add one back in. I'm fine without one, failing that. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:No original research, please do not add material to this entry unless reliable secondary sources indicates its connection to the topic of Forbes 30 Under 30. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Came here wondering what "30 under 30" meant, and I'm still not clear what "under 30" means. Is it a funding thing? An age thing? The article makes no mention.Brianetta ^{Brian Ronald, UK. Talk here} 11:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianetta, very good point, sorry I’m just noticing it 3.5 years later! It’s people under 30 years old. I’ve added that to the first sentence but if you think it would be helpful elsewhere as well, please do add—it’s so helpful to hear from people who don’t know the topic, to point out what needs explaining. Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WatersPhD, thanks for your additions to this page. I see they are all sourced to Forbes own site, making them stray a bit into the realm of original research and promotion which we try to avoid. Have any independent reliable sources discussed these events? Such sources would help us make sure we are giving a neutral account. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Innisfree987, thank you for your message. You're right I should try to find other sources. When I do so, I'll change the references. Have a great day! WatersPhD (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC). P.S. Was I supposed to reply to your message this way by clicking "edit" on your original comment?[reply]

Thanks WatersPhD, adding other sources would be great, and you did just fine replying! One tweak: If you add a colon before your comment, it will indent and “thread” the conversation as I have done. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a list of 30 people under the age of 30 whose names are public is quite trivial. The WP:LEAD here says "a set of lists of people under 30 years old" without saying what Forbes claims is the reason for listing those 30 people. Is it really only the fact that they are under 30?

We need a sourced description of why Forbes claims it thinks that these people should become notable, apart from the recursive fact that they become notable by being placed on the list. Boud (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is "business and industry figures" supposed to be the criterion for listing? Boud (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this paragraph that said "fraud" as it is based on an opinion piece and it is not objective. The source that was used was just an opinion piece and does not reflect the list as a whole. It is not the list's fault that only 4 individuals out of thousands of people on the list happened to have committed a white collar crime. Also, Elizabeth Holmes is irrelevant as she was not even on this list. If you look at any alumni of colleges for example, you would also find some fraudulent alumni but you wouldn't add a "fraud" paragraph on their pages just because some of them attended the college. This is a subjective paragraph and should be removed, since it is misleading, and especially since it is based on an opinion piece. It is misleading and makes it look like they committed fraud because or for the list when that is inaccurate. Statistically, there will always be a small percentage of people on a list with thousands of people who end up being in a bad light, but that does not reflect the list as a whole. I am sure the four people referenced like SBF and Holmes were also on lists from other publications, but nobody has added their names on other publications' pages either.--Lingodu (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]