Talk:Jussie Smollett/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"staged" allegations

Although there are now widespread reports of the Chicago police saying they believe the attack may be a hoax, the police have released a statement directly contradicting these reports, which are all based on (and cite) a single channel 7 report. That report has now been directly contradicted by the relevant authority. Until such tie as the dust settles, anything saying officials think it is a hoax should not be included. Media reports anout the Empire incident being a hoax are unconfirmed by case detectives. Supt Eddie Johnson has contacted @ABC7Chicago to state on the record that we have no evidence to support their reporting and their supposed CPD sources are uninformed and inaccurate. https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2019/02/police-raid-home-of-persons-of-interest-in-jussie-smollet-attack https://twitter.com/AJGuglielmi/status/1096206043728789507 ResultingConstant (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jussie Smollett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Born in Brazil?

I came here looking for info on why was he born in Brazil, as he's cited as american and his sister was born in New York. I guess it's at least curious and maybe should be worth adding to the article. --Joaotorres (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

According to TV Guide, a highly reliable source [1]:
  • Birth Name: Jussie Langston Mikha Smollett
  • Birth Place: Santa Rosa, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
  • Birthday: June 21, 1983
Per basic Wikipedia policies at WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP, we cannot change this to Santa Rosa, California, without citation. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In his interview, Smollett said that he was born in Santa Rosa, California.--Alrofficial (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

There just isn't much more to say about this person which would be of public interest. He's just lucky to be the brother of Jurnee Smollet, otherwise there wouldn't be an article about him, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.142.74 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub classification

I have classified this as a stub as well as referencing it and expanding it a bit. The person above raises notability concerns about this person so it might go to AfD. Capitalistroadster 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He is bisexual

He dated Raven Dange 34-4 (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Agreed. He did not specify "gay" (or "bisexual" or other), he said he as "never been in the closet", and he has had at least one serious girlfriend. Therefore he is bisexual. Stop "Bisexual Erasure". LA Times

Name

I seriously question whether Familysearch is a reliable source. Note that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE states consensus must be reached before restoring an edit contested on BLP grounds, and it is a BLP issue to source the first name of a subject that is usually referred to as Jussie to a single non-reliable source. Pinging past editors who have made edits related to this: @Cameron11598 and Debresser:. ~ Rob13Talk 17:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't consider FamilySearch to be a WP:RS. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is pretty clear WP:Consensus needs to be reached before adding the information again. I removed the source originally on WP:BLP & WP:RS grounds. Personally I don't think the source should be re-added and this was the only source that has that information. Thanks for the ping @BU Rob13:--Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jussie Smollett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Brooker" should be Booker

At the moment, in one spot Cory Booker's name is misspelled as "Brooker..." probably one of the guardians of Wiki should fix this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4001:88AD:5059:DE84:EF9C:85C2 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed General Ization Talk 20:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Crafty Beaver Home Center is correct, not ACE Hardware

Change "ACE Hardware" to "Crafty Beaver Home Center" which is the name of the hardware store where the rope was purchased. The sourced media outlets saying "ACE Hardware" are wrong. There are many small neighborhood ACE Hardware stores in Chicago, but the Crafty Beaver is a much bigger hardware store. CBS News 173.61.73.6 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC) 173.61.73.6 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Good catch! I have fixed it. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

Please change "On January 29, 2019, Smollett was attacked in Chicago in what was described as a possible hate crime." to "On January 29, 2019, Smollett was the victim of a hate crime while in Chicago." or another statement that similarly indicates that the attack was unequivocally a hate crime. He was beaten, bleach was poured on him, and his attackers placed a noose around his neck while using homophobic and racist slurs (he is an lgbt black man). Wheatcreature (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Until it is officially ruled a hate crime, the language you suggest implies that it is a fact which is unconfirmed. Sorry DannyS712 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't find this explanation reasonable. There are characteristics of this event that are not in dispute, specifically the names he was called and the noose that was affixed to his neck. A declaration from the police is not necessary for this to be called unequivocally a hate crime. The undisputed facts as they stand right now ("On January 29, 2019, Smollett was attacked" that it occurred, the names he was called, and the noose) can only lead to this being a hate crime. No additional information is pending verification to establish this fact. If new information comes to light that refutes the facts as they are known right now, then the page can be further edited. We are unable to predict the future in reporting any information on any article - we can only go on facts as they are known at any one given moment. At this moment, we know certain things about this case, and those things simply mean a hate crime occurred. Even the word "possible" is redundant, as in the same sentence, it is written "what was described". This seems to be here an interjection of personal bias on the part of an editor, holding authority of a first-hand account to a lower than usual level, as a true description of the event is being withheld in spite of the established, known facts. We simply know what constitutes a hate crime and know that specifically those characteristics occurred here. Again, if circumstances change later, as with any article, this can be edited to continually stay the most accurate. I do not believe that normally, a first hand account would be held to this level of scrutiny. Requesting a separate senior editor step in to consider this request. Adrade (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
A crime is determined to be a hate crime, with enhanced legal consequences, during criminal investigation. Your suggested language pre-supposes that the investigation will confirm this element, when it has not yet done so. We may not make statements not made by our sources, and we may not predict the future. It is a hateful crime, no doubt, but it may not be described as a confirmed hate crime until reliable sources report that authorities have done so. The change you requested will not be made. General Ization Talk 18:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that characterization is entirely correct. It is correct to say that there is "an alleged hate crime". There are three possibilities: (1) he was attacked and hate was the motivation, (2) he was attacked but the motivation was something unrelated to hate (like robbery), or (3) he was not attacked. Regardless of what actually happened, it was an alleged hate crime, even if it never comes to pass that any court adjudicates it as such. (Plenty of people are murdered but their killers are never caught - the fact that no court ever judged someone to be a murderer does not mean that a murder didn't happen.) --B (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Cited sources have used the terms "possible hate crime" and "suspected hate crime". We're not going to split hairs and call it an "alleged hate crime", unless and until our cited sources use that phrase. General Ization Talk 18:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
And actually no; you may call it whatever you like when you speak of it, but we do not use the encyclopedic voice to call a killing a murder unless or until someone is either convicted of murder or declared a murderer by the appropriate authorities, as reported by reliable sources. Until that time, we call it a killing. General Ization Talk 18:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Outside of the encyclopedic voice, we could at most report quotes from any notable persons who refer to killings as murders (even if there hasn't been a conviction) so in this context we could mention for example, if Donald Trump referred to this as a hate crime, but I don't think he has, just that it was 'horrible'. EphFan (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

Not sure what "sexual fluidity" means. Variability, perhaps? Sca (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

See Sexual fluidity. General Ization Talk 22:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

victimhood hoax to advance career

suggest Wikipedia document the made-up attempt at victim status Jussie tried to perpetrate, with the hoax attack. This was a hate-crime against Donald Trump and his supportive base. Surely permanent "Victim status" was the motive here. What a great career booster for the black, gay man in Trump's America, huh? All of Trump's MAGA base were targeted as much as Donald Trump himself. The Main Stream Media and prominent Democrats willingly played along and supported the false narrative. Jussie committed a hate-crime and Wikipedia should document this. #JusticeforJussie ~ Bought the farm (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Escalation of the race war in 2019

Should this turns out to be a staged hoax, it's weirdly very reminiscent of Vince Bugliosi's theory about Charles Manson's "Family" attempting to start a race war in 1969. Both incidence attempting to enflame racism in America. If a hoax... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM please. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No, really, please consider, the analogy as real and pertinent, Jussie attempted to escalate a race war in 2019 - nearly 50 years after the alleged "Manson Family" attempts of the same thing... Oh! btw, the "Manson Family" have been locked up for life... okay, let's find #JusticeforJussie #MAGA ~ Bought the farm (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Frankly, I don't think it matters. Whatever Trump may have said exactly, it doesn't strike me as anything more (actually less) than obligatory blathering of the type we normally try to exclude from major international disaster articles, etc," General Ization Talk 19:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

HUH??? BIAS'ed much? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

Remove the race of the assailants and the maga hat. The CNN article the is its reference does not contain that information 2604:6000:E245:D500:707C:FCC1:3849:F685 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The accusation that it was a racial hate crime by white trump supporters is the entire catalyst of this event. 2601:982:4200:A6C:E8DB:2ABC:8904:37E1 (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It should be noted in the article that the two "assailants" were actually Nigerians (i.e. black guys), not white guys with MAGA hats.66.141.235.58 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done

 Already done DannyS712 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

Could someone add info on the letter that he received, he is being investigated by the fbi and usps, it's listed as possible motivation for the hoax.24.127.111.210 (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ResultingConstant (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Citations

The 2019 incident currently cites American Thinker, which has been rated as an extremely suspect conspiracy site. I've removed it an inappropriate for a source -- mediaite and the source are rated as reliable, and should be sufficient. American Thinker, however, is basically trash.71.222.234.81 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Attack

It states the attack on him on 1/29/19 was done by white men. That statement has yet to be found anywhere but here on Wikipedia. Correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.199.185 (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The claim that both of the attackers were white is both sourced[2] and attributed inline to TMZ, along with the information that police have discounted that early report and cannot confirm or rebut that particular claim at this time. General Ization Talk 19:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Police have confirmed that the initial interview Smollett gave with them didn't mention anything about them being white or MAGA. Smollett did mention "MAGA country" in a 2nd follow-up interview with police (not sure how many hours apart these were but I think within the same day) but I haven't seen any evidence that he mentioned "white" men in the follow-up interview. I'd be interested in knowing what time the 1st and 2nd interviews occurred, particularly in respect to the TMZ story. Is it possible that Smollett mentioned this to TMZ prior to the police? EphFan (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Who knows. This is one of the reasons that TMZ is regarded as an unreliable source, and were it not attributed inline and effectively followed by a disclaimer, I'd remove all of the TMZ-sourced content from the article. General Ization Talk 19:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Add: Hoax Attack created by Jussie Smollett

The incident...

As the article reads presently, the first indication that the reader gets that the incident may have been staged is a parenthetical that reads "(before Chicago Police had publicly indicated the possibility that Smollett had orchestrated the attack)" If I were unfamiliar with the story, and reading the article this comment would confuse the hell out of me, because it assumes the reader knows what we are talking about. There needs to be an indication that this dynamic is at play in the first pgph of that section. I will attempt to do so. PaulCHebert (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional content for section '2019 Chicago Incident'

Whoever feels it is relevant can add a summary and a link to a Feb 19, 2019 article wherein MSN network reports that a grand jury has been impaneled to investigate the matter, and that the Onsundairo brothers are cooperating with the police and will offer evidence against a 3rd party to the attack.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:C100:8540:1010:369C:67B0:FD2A (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

effectively  Done ResultingConstant (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Smollett cut from 'Empire'

He appears to have been removed from the show.[1][2][3] 2601:982:4200:A6C:80C3:C7:660E:E94A (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://deadline.com/2019/02/jussie-smollett-empire-scenes-cut-attack-controversy-1202560053/
  2. ^ https://pagesix.com/2019/02/19/jussie-smolletts-empire-scenes-cut-after-attack-controversy/
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDR2qhScFZM
Some scenes were cut, he hasn't been dropped from the show itself. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Criminal charges and arrest

I suggest to add a paragraph about the significant February 21st, 2019 criminal charges and arrest. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV). With sources.

On February 21, 2019 the Chicago Police Department (CPD) stated that Smollett “is under arrest and in the custody of detectives”. The CPD spokesman Anthony Guglielmi, said that Smollett was named as suspect in a criminal investigation for filing a fake police report, under a class 4 felony. The same day Smollett turned himself in to police, authorities said. Smollett faces a maximum penalty of three years in prison.[1][2]
Sources

  1. ^ Ozimek, Tom (2019-02-21). "'Empire' Actor Jussie Smollett Arrested on Charges of Filing False Police Report". The Epoch Times. Retrieved 2019-02-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ Zwirz, Elizabeth; Derespina, Cody (2019-02-21). "Jussie Smollett is under arrest, in custody of Chicago police | Fox News". Fox News. Retrieved 2019-02-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Francewhoa (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done ResultingConstant (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

The second instance of the word "Smollett" in the second paragraph is misspelled "Sollett". Insert the M. HT Black (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done aboideautalk 16:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

2007 misdemeanor case

I'm not sure if the 2007 misdemeanor case should go under a subheading in Personal life or in a new Controversies section in which the 2019 incident comprises the majority. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 04:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hospitalization?

The Chicago indicent is currently headlined "2019 hospitalization". However, in his recent public performance, according to Variety "[Smollett" said he wanted to address and clarify: “I was bruised but my ribs were not cracked; they were not broken. I went to the doctor immediately… I was not hospitalized". Further down it the article it says "Smollett then transported himself to an area hospital after speaking with police" . Seems he may have had a doctor's check at the hospital, but not full hospitalization. Iselilja (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump statement

I've noticed some inconsistencies about how this is reported. Compare Variety (top) to THR News (bottom) to the actual audio recording (middle) for example:

"I can tell you that it's horrible. It doesn't get worse."
"that, I can tell you, is horrible. I've seen it. I think that's horrible. It doesn't get worse."
"That I can tell you is horrible. It doesn't get worse."

Reporting seems consistent about his final 5 words (doesn't is a contraction) but the claims he preceded it with "I can tell you that it's" or "That I can tell you is" are both false. Both are cherry-picked omissions being misreported.

Is anyone able to find footage of Trump making the statement or information about what April Ryan asked him? The audio recording on AURN doesn't include that, it only begins at his response. EphFan (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it matters. Whatever Trump may have said exactly, it doesn't strike me as anything more (actually less) than obligatory blathering of the type we normally try to exclude from major international disaster articles, etc. General Ization Talk 19:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to remove the Trump comment at this time, but I invite other editors to let us know whether they agree with me that it should be removed as mostly irrelevant and adding essentially nothing of value to the article. General Ization Talk 20:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I would be in agreement with removal as proposed. XavierItzm (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

crisis manager

Please do not remove the cited sentence about his hiring a crisis manager. This is absolutely relevant here. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019


Please remove the two commas from the phrase: "...with some unnamed police sources alleging Smollett orchestrated, or staged, the attack." 2607:FEA8:A300:540:3581:B162:D1B5:1E68 (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmm why? It's not wrong. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Depends what the original editor is attempting to say. If we keep the commas in, the sentence means that: Smollett orchestrated the attack ... and, by the way, "staged" is another word that also means "orchestrated". The two words mean the same thing. If we take the commas out, the sentence means that: Smollett either orchestrated the attack ... or he staged it ... the two words mean (subtly) different things. That is my reading. So, it depends on what was being said ... or was attempted at being said. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
If we keep the commas in, the sentence means that: Smollett orchestrated (or, in other words, he staged) the attack. If we take the commas out, the sentence means that: Smollett either orchestrated the attack ... or he staged it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: the wording from the original request is no longer in the article. NiciVampireHeart 12:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dave Chappelle

When this is finally revealed to be a hoax, let's add this bit about Dave Chappelle being the first public figure to state so outright:

[[Dave Chappelle]] performed on February 14 in [[Charlotte, North Carolina]] and stated that he thinks the attack was faked.<ref>[http://www.newnownext.com/dave-chappelle-jussie-smollett-attack-joke/02/2019/ Dave Chappelle Says He Wants to Break a Dollhouse Over Jussie Smollett’s Head for “Lying”: The comedian reacted to breaking news suggesting the attack against the actor and singer was a hoax.] Jeff Taylor, ''New Now Next'', 15 February 2019</ref>

(Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we're there. If the idiot had been from Chicago, he'd have known this wasn't going to work. Made no sense in the Chicago of 2019, let alone Streeterville. 98.4.103.187 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
What amounts to a 'public figure'? Lots of people have publicly stated as much, even before Chapelle. And even if he was the first, why should it be pointed out? This feels very bizarre. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
To me a public figure is anyone notable enough to have a Wiki bio article. Do you have any reliable sources that quote other public figures denouncing the charade as a hoax? I don't think any notable people did so prior to 14 Feb. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 17:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Michelle Malkin and Steven Crowder [3]. Terrence K. Williams. But you are missing my point. I don't think it should be included, regardless who was first. --SVTCobra (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I think reactions from media and public figures are very relevant to this article, including reactions from right-wing pundits, Democrat senators, POC comedians and rappers such as Chappelle & Cardi B, et al. The public discourse about the incident is absolutely encyclopedic information in this case. Of course we don't want this section to become bloated and completely take over the article, so the reactions of lesser-known persons will have to wait until the incident has its own article. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 04:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

hot sauce bottle

I know the NYPost is iffy, however I think they may be involved as a participant in this event now. In this article, which contains otherwise irrelevant neighbor opinions, there is the following snippet : The assailants allegedly punched Smollett in the face, doused him with a liquid — believed to be bleach — and tied a rope around his neck in an underpass between the Sheraton and Loews Chicago hotels. Last week, The Post traced Smollett’s likely route to the underpass from a 24-hour Subway sandwich shop where he bought a tuna sandwich and a salad. Near the foot of a stairwell to the Loews, The Post found an empty hot sauce bottle that was partially filled with a clear liquid that smelled like bleach. The Post alerted police, who seized the bottle. Guglielmi said it was turned over to the FBI for analysis. https://nypost.com/2019/02/11/jussie-smolletts-neighbors-cast-doubt-on-his-attack-story/ ResultingConstant (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Judges don't litigate

Near the end of the article, it says, "If the City of Chicago were to proceed with the lawsuit, then the Judge would have to litigate whether Jussie is guilty using the standard of preponderance of evidence to determine innocence or guilt."

But in the United States, judges do not litigate. Attorneys for the parties do. American judges -- state and federal -- are neutral magistrates who referee legal proceedings. This is a very poorly written sentence.

And, in civil lawsuits, it isn't "guilt" that is being determined. It's liability. Different concepts.

This sentence should say, "If the City of Chicago were to proceed with the lawsuit, then the jury -- or, in the case of a bench trial, the judge -- would have to determine whether Jussie is liable using the preponderance of evidence standard."

 Done Re-wrote that paragraph taking into account your suggestions.AlexEng(TALK) 18:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 NAACP Image Award

Smollett has been nominated for a 2019 NAACP Image Award for his work on Empire. When was the nomination made or first publically announced? 98.13.244.125 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Announced on Feb 13, Looks like deadline for nominations are generally in Nov/Oct. https://naacpimageawards.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Nominee-Announcement-Press-Release.pdf ResultingConstant (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

He did not win. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

"Entertainment industry figures, including Shonda Rhimes and Viola Davis"

Just throwing this out there: the article currently says "entertainment industry figures, including Shonda Rhimes and Viola Davis, tweeted their outrage and support"... meanwhile, this Variety article says "co-stars and colleagues on “Empire,” celebrities such as Ellen Page and Zendaya"... colleagues on the show more relevant or at least equivalent to other celebrities who just happen to be African American. Seems potentially worth adding/replacing in the article. 98.13.244.125 (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"the incident": vague obfuscating summary sentence in lead section should be more encyclopedic and less spin now

The current summary of the new facts in the lead section (last paragraph/sentence of lead): "Police alleged that he exploited the incident — and tied it into current and past racism in the United States and Donald Trump . . ." does an excellent job of obfuscating what happened here, in order to maintain Wikipedia's longstanding need to be "progressive" about all things political.

Suggested summary that just sticks to encyclopedic facts, but includes those same points:

"Police alleged that Smollett manufactured and contrived a fake anti-Black, anti-Gay hate crime, which never actually happened, taking advantage of the fact that in the current political climate where 'progressives' and 'journalists' are always very eager to 'report' such crimes as part of their "Trump creates a climate where hate crimes happen!" narrative, he would get lots of sympathetic unquestioning attention and he would be believed. The Chief said that Smollett figured the attention and sympathy would get him a higher salary. The chief said that Smollett did not count on the fact that Chicago PD takes allegations of these crimes very seriously, and that Smollett did not count on the fact that Chicago PD is very competent at doing police work to get at the truth."

70.18.10.95 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Your statement goes far beyond "facts" and deep into opinions (some of which are notable opinions from relevant people though). What are the sources that specifically back each point there? ResultingConstant (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned this blip is not lede-worthy whatsoever. It’s been, what, 3 weeks? Trillfendi (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

What is not lede worthy? ResultingConstant (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

$3500 check

I don’t like TMZ as much as the next person, purely based on their trademark sensationalism. But that doesn’t changed the fact that TMZ has often broken truthful stories before anyone else. Yes they’re unabashed in paying for tips but that’s irrelevant here. Sometimes, a broken clock is right twice a day. With that said, it’s not up to us as editors to analyze the evidence. None of us are PIs nor Cook County prosecutors. I’m not saying what TMZ said is the unmitigated truth because at this point who really knows, but we still have to give both sides of the story, per neutrality. If TMZ did in fact “fabricate” said evidence, obviously they’d be sued for it. Trillfendi (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

TMZ could be right, but let's wait for a more reliable source to comment on this before we add it to the article. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 22:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
While recent sources can correct older sources, we have sources like NYT saying the check was for the attack. TMZ isn't a RS to contradict that. Its likely that Smollett will use this reasoning in his public and trial defense, at which point it will be covered by better sources, and we can do a he said she said between the police and smollett. ResultingConstant (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Charges Dropped - March 26, 2019

The charges were dropped on March 26th, not March 21, as indicated in the current version of the article[1].

Source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-jussie-smollett-charges-dropped-20190326-story.html


206.44.239.235 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

He got delayed prosecution where he has to jump through some hoops for the charges to stay dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.140.155 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Police superintendent and Chicago Mayor are furious over the charges being dropped. Rahm Emanuel stated the following quotes. "This is a whitewash of justice." “Is there no decency in this man?” "We cannot have one set of rules for the privileged, and another for everyone else." "Mr. Smollett is still saying he is innocent. How dare him. How dare him!" 2601:982:4200:A6C:C8AF:93D5:7761:619E (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC) [2] [3]


References

  1. ^ https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-jussie-smollett-charges-dropped-20190326-story.html
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_6585-NNY0
  3. ^ https://pagesix.com/2019/03/26/chicagos-top-cop-furious-smollett-is-cleared-of-charges/

Do we really need 6 sources for the false police report?

6 sources is a lot and most are rehashing the information. I was thinking of whittling it down to the 1st and the latest source about the issue.BMO4744 (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

one could take the time to see if this is just a case of several sources repeating one or more original sources and go with the first or more reliable source(s). -- Naaman Brown (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jussie_Smollett/Archive_1&oldid=1109140950"