Talk:Jussie Smollett/Archive 2

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

Branch off to separate article?

As new sources become available and the story unfolds, we may need to create a new article that just discusses the hoax when the section here becomes too large. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this could be warranted. This is evolving into something more than just an incident with Smollett. Its becoming a nation wide debate on how prevalent "hate crimes" are in America, and on how seriously alleged victims are taken. Every day this story grows, and beginning to dominate this page. 2601:982:4200:A6C:CD0D:6845:8D55:528D (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, do. XavierItzm (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
While this incident may be worthy of a standalone article, and is certainly part of a conversation on hate crimes, an article about this incident would not be the proper place to put all the content regarding the status of hate crimes in America. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes for a separate article, but at the same time leave this BLP article detailed regarding the hoax incident. #JusticeforJussie #MAGA ~ Bought the farm (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I have created a breakout article with the temporary name Alleged attack of Jussie Smollett. It can be moved to a better name once a a resolution to the incident is revealed. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice start!! I suspect the title could be "The staged hoax attack of Jussie Smollett - which further enflamed racist claims against MAGA hat donners" ~ Bought the farm (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
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 things attempting to enflame racism in America. If a hoax... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM please. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If we have a breakout article, shouldn't the content in this article be trimmed more? It's almost exactly the same content.206.47.249.246 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed almost 1/2 of it already. It seems like a reasonable current summary of the state of things, but it was obviously going to grow quickly with the change in direction of the event. Now all of that growth can go into the new article, and this article doesn't need to track the evolution of the event, just the current status. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No--there is no good reason for this whatsoever. Even the title is problematic. I have redirected. Feel free to put back whatever content you wish--with careful attention to WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:UNDUE. We are not cable news or a tabloid. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Copy and pasting text back is tiresome. Would rather revert to the version before the redirect, and then tag problematic sections and from there remove/fix things --Distelfinck (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
We need to wait until after the outcome of the court case to branch off to a separate article. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 04:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, this particular section has already become detailed enough, so I guess it’s time to branch off now Jnlt215 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Racial hoaxes

Somebody please tell me when I can add Category:Racial hoaxes to this guy. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth it to create a separate article specifically on the incident Rossbawse (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's too early to add that. You should wait until he is found guilty of that. I don't doubt that he did it but it would probably be removed by some other person.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Too soon. And despite appearances, he's due his day in court before we draw conclusions. Now, as an editorial comment, if the two brothers indeed were involved, Smollet's statements about how they "tussled" and he fought back seem incredible. The brothers are each twice his size.70.83.230.212 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we have to wait for conviction necessarily. Either of the following would be sufficient imo : A confession, or a number of highly reliable sources (say NYT, WaPo etc) describing it in their own voice in such terms (as opposed to just reporting on someone else describing it that way).

Add now. This is not only a racial hoax but a sexual orientation hoax as well. Disgusting. 66.141.235.58 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
And a Hoax that was further pushed by the LGBTQ community, which tried to link the "attack" to the President, Vice President and their supporters to create and spread more hatred in a rush to judgment.. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

When it goes to trial and if the jury reaches a guilty verdict. Implicit bias is what’s ruining this website. Trillfendi (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC - Should a separate WP:EVENT article be created for the Jussie Smollett Chicago Incident

Result is obvious "no, at least not yet". No reason to drag this on. Closed by proposer. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As Smollett has now been charged and arrested, the details for this incident are likely to continue to grow rapidly. Should a standalone article be created for the WP:EVENT and the content in this article be kept to a WP:SUMMARY. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Split. This event certainly passes WP:GNG on its own, and coverage is going to grow to overwhelm this BLP rapidly (although it may shortly become the most important event in this guys life). ResultingConstant (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No. This is a great example of WP:PAGEDECIDE. There is little to no practical benefit to spinning off a separate event article at this time. Everyone interested in the event will be searching for Jussie Smollett. If the event starts to overwhelm Smollett's biography then the issue can be reexamined later. But there are lots of biographies just like this one, that read perfectly well with some notable scandal or controversy placed in a section. R2 (bleep) 18:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait to split. The current section is not completely overwhelming the rest of the article. Let's wait until the outcome of the court case is announced. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Split. It has already overwhelmed the biography. This article currently has 700 words about the incident and the rest of the article has 600 words (not counting the lead, tables and notes). The lead section currently contains one paragraph about this; in my opinion, it should remain one paragraph regardless of the rest of the lead. It can also be mentioned in the first lead paragraph if it becomes appropriate. With regards to the section in this article, I believe that two semi-lengthy paragraphs are enough (one for initial reporting and reactions, the other for subsequent events). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 19:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Then it should be edited down to a paragraph. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The section currently has a whopping 1400 words, while the rest of the article has 600 words (not counting the 200-word notes, the lead and tables). wumbolo ^^^ 17:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Split. The alleged attack / hoax needs to have its own separate article. If the section remains here, Smollett's entire biography, in effect, will be the section about the hoax. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Split. This is an international news story that has grown well beyond this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No to split. He is not well known enough for this. The vast majority of the public never heard of him. There is no reason it cannot fit in his biography. And while it's attracted attention, it's not anywhere near the level that warrants its own article. Everything celebrities do attract attention - Charlie Sheen's meltdown didn't need its own article and it had 10,000 times the media attention - it was all anybody on the planet talked about. Now it's barely a blip in his biography and has been edited down to about four sentences. The attention now doesn't necessarily mean there will be a lasting impact on anyone but him and his career. He will take a plea deal and his career will be over. So the lasting impact just isn't there unless something else happens, such as an actual trial. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No He's nowhere near famous enough to warrant a separate page on this hoax and my perception is that the media and public are alreayd moving on. This is not like the Tawana Brawley trial from the late 80's that had the nation's full attetnion. EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No or at least not yet. Wikipedians love to cram in every speck of new news the moment it breaks online, resulting in "articles" that resemble news reports, not sober encyclopedias. We can write succinctly and proportionately without quoting every person who tweets, rehashing every police statement, and giving equal time to every news outlet from ABC to Yahoo!. We summarize and edit, and editing implies a filter. Believe it or not, Wikipedia isn't a place for everything, even if it's true. An article can be made NPOV by taking a step back from the hourly fire hose of breaking news hitting our eyeballs, and summarizing (not regurgitating) the most salient issues in proportion to their prominence and relevance. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait to split. Too early to know yet. Battleofalma (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Split. Per Rreagan007 (talk) this thing has expanded way past this BLP and taken over the whole page. It doesn't matter how "famous" he is--the hoax itself received prolonged and extensive media coverage. I don't think recency is an issue here. 207.239.164.66 (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, split. WP:GNG was wildly been exceeded on this particular event. XavierItzm (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes! Split, 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 thangs attempting to enflame racism in the U.S. of America. I've discussed this with others [in law enforcement], they all agree it's the same thang - 1969 to 2019. So lets have #JusticeforJussie and #MAGA ~ Bought the farm (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No for all the reasons above. I think Animalparty summed this up well. --hippo43 (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No As with 21 Savage people are too quick to jump to conclusions on a weeks-old stroy rather than wait for the dust to settle and all FACTS to come forth. Trillfendi (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not yet, anyways. Give it a little while to figure out if it dies in the public consciousness or becomes something people actually care about independent of the individual in question. PaulCHebert (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not now. This page serves the purpose.

Threaded discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

notable and reliable sources describing incident as hoax

For backing section naming and categorization discussions

and more ResultingConstant (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

EDIT REQUEST: There is No Community Service, please correct article Please remove the incorrect mention of community service. wiki is incorrect, there is No Community Service requirement and there was no sentence of any kind. The judge made a reference to Jussie having made service to the community (in his role as a celebrity). He walked out of court with zero obligations and is a free man without a tainted record.````

 Not done: From Chicago Tribune source [1].
"But in an interview Tuesday afternoon, First Assistant State's Attorney Joseph Magats, who took charge of the case after State’s Attorney Kim Foxx stepped aside because of a conflict of interest, said the office reached a deal with the defense in recent weeks to drop the charges if Smollett performed community service and forfeited his $100,000 bond."
"In the Tribune interview, Magats could not immediately confirm how many hours of community service Smollett performed or where , though he said he believes the actor may have done work with one of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's organizations, formerly known as Operation PUSH." WikiVirusC(talk) 19:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there was no requirement imposed for him to perform any community service. They took into account volunteer work that he's already doing, and imposed exactly zero new community service conditions on him. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on New York times[2] there seems to be some dispute on the agreement and if there was one at all. "Prosecutors characterized it as an agreement, but Mr. Smollett’s legal team denied that any deal had taken place; in any event, Mr. Smollett was still required to do community service and forfeit the $10,000", ... "In an interview later, Joe Magats, the prosecutor who made the decision, said that there had been no problems with the evidence or the police investigation into Mr. Smollett. Mr. Magats said he dropped the charges after Mr. Smollett agreed to the community service and to give up the $10,000 he paid for his release" Probably best to mention the dispute of the agreement(or lack of) in the article. I know there was no new Community service required after today, it sounds like agreement was discussed weeks ago, and the community service is done already.WikiVirusC(talk) 20:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the prosecutor's office would be authoritative as to there being an agreement. Very clear that he was NOT exhonerated, but that they chose not to pursue. It appears now there is a new investigation as to what or who might have convinced the prosecutor to drop charges. 204.62.118.155 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"Hoax" categories

Please do not insert "Hoax"-related categories into this article. Categories are, well, categorical, and would need ironclad sourcing that a hoax actually happened — and in this case, because the hoax, if it was a hoax, would be a criminal offense... we can't really categorize it as a hoax without a criminal conviction. This is separate from the question of what we discuss in the article — we can, should and must discuss the allegations that he committed a hoax. But categories are not nuanced — there isn't a category for "Allegations of hoaxing," and we can't categorize this person as being responsible for a hoax when the existence of the hoax is seriously contested and not proven in a court of law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, no one is disagreeing that it was a hoax. What they are disagreeing over is if it amounted to a felony, and if so is it worth the time of the prosecutor's office to pursue it when it's sure to be expensive, highly publicized, and distract from important things like the large amount of gang and drug related murder in Chicago. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.118.155 (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah Smollett is the only one disputing that it was a hoax. If he will never be prosecuted anyway, it seems weird (and unfair to other BLPs) not to put the category there. wumbolo ^^^ 12:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
"No one is disagreeing that it was a hoax" - Wrong. Reliable sources pretty clearly refer to allegations that it was a hoax. Again, it may be "clear" in our minds that it was a hoax, but The New York Times says, for example, accused of staging a hate crime attack in January - not "he staged a hate crime attack." [3] We have to be careful with words and categories here no less than we are with Donald Trump. Lots of people may think Donald Trump colluded with Russia, but we can't put him in a category that says he did. Basically, we're talking about the difference between what we believe and what we know. Was it probably a hoax? Sure. And we absolutely can and should refer to the sources which discuss those allegations and the evidence, so that readers may draw their own conclusions. But in the absence of a court decision (vice the Duke lacrosse case, where the attorney general declared them innocent and the prosecutor was convicted of lying and disbarred), we can't and shouldn't, in Wikivoice, stamp this with a factual conclusion that it was, definitively, a hoax. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that the category is saying it definitively was a hoax. Categories are often used when the topics are strongly linked, and the question of if this is a hoax or not is certainly indisputably notable, strongly linked, and reliably sourced. However, I would not be opposed to creating a sub-cat of "Alleged hoaxes" or "Alleged racial hoaxes" or something, to be more clear. An obvious parallel case here is Tawana Bradley, which is catted with the hoax cats, based on the opinion of a grand jury, just like Smollett's case, and yet The bradley's still maintain that the incident was real, was not a hoax, and there are notable supporters of them (Spike Lee, Al Sharpton, etc) ResultingConstant (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The Tawana Brawley case is distinct from this one because of this fact: Steven Pagones, the New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants, successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation. There's a court judgment that Brawley lied about her accusation. If, for example, someone sues Smollett and wins a similar court judgment, I would agree that the category would belong. Again, I may really, really think that O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder, but you won't find him in categories that say he's a murderer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to link to Tawana Brawley rape allegations in the "See also" section? I understand the cases are distinct. But they are also in some ways similar. And an encyclopedic purpose would be served by alerting the reader to that similar case due to its prominence. I've gone ahead and made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
And I have reverted it - no, "See also" sections are a weasely way of trying to draw undue attention to unsourced links betweeen two otherwise-unrelated things. If there's a reliable opinion source which draws a connection, it could be linked inline in such a discussion - as was done with "Racial hoax" and a commentator who alleged the connection. If you can't find a reliable source which makes the connection, we certainly shouldn't be creating ourselves from whole cloth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Bang on with that. No matter what anybody thinks about whether O.J. did it or not, or what anybody thinks about whether Jussie's guilty of hoaxery or not, it is not Wikipedia's role to make a pronouncement about that in our own editorial voice. Until a court pronounces him guilty of something, not guilty under law means not guilty on Wikipedia: no ifs, no ands, no buts, and go make love to yourself with a snowblower if you think there are any ifs or ands or buts. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Are there any Wikipedia policies that specifically address the issue as to whether or not there has to be a criminal conviction in a court of law for something to be termed a "hoax"? Obviously for WP:BLP reasons we need a conviction before we can state "Subject X murdered person Y" because in those instances we're talking about a crime (murder) which could constitute defamation per se. But a hoax in and of itself may or may not be crime. In Smollet's case, the alleged crime was lying to police, while the hoax was telling the public that he was the victim of a homophobic/racist assault (which is not illegal, i.e., the act of doing talk shows and telling millions of people on TV that he was attacked was subterfuge designed to win him sympathy and help his job prospects but was not a crime). So that aspect of Smollet's nationally publicized hoax is separate from his troubles with the Chicago Police Department and will never involve criminal adjudication, it's just a matter of reliable sourcing. No conviction is necessary for BLP purposes because the TV interviews were not and could never be a criminal matter. Why can't the hoax category apply to him here in that respect? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Smollett's nationally publicized hoax - Assumes facts not in evidence. As I just noted, reliable news sources like The New York Times are being cautious with their description of these events, precisely because they are allegations and not proven facts. I agree with you that it is likely, but "likely" isn't enough for a category with no nuances, per WP:BLPCAT. We are required to use caution with categories that put an article subject in a poor light. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it's a made up policy. Mohamed Atta was never convicted for 9/11 but the lead says he was a hijacker and one of the ringleaders of the September 11 attacks. Why? Because the majority of reliable sources say he was, like the majority of reliable sources in this story say it was a hoax. The only disagreement is from Jussie and his lawyers disagree and they're not reliable. Cestlavieleir (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Mohamed Atta died aboard a hijacked plane he flew into the WTC, and incidentally is dead, so BLP doesn't apply. Please support your claim that an overwhelming majority of reliable news sources describe this as, factually, a hoax - not "allegations." I've already shown that the NYT is not describing this in factual terms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
That's weasely. Here's Omar Mateen a month after his death so BLP still applied - Omar Mir Seddique Mateen was an American mass murderer who killed 49 people and wounded 53 others. No conviction though. Looks like you made up two new rules, one that to call something a hoax requires a criminal conviction and two, that alleged hoaxes don't get the hoax category. You're wrong about both but even if you're wrong about one the categories stay. Cestlavieleir (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Omar Mateen died in the process of committing his crime, so it's impossible to have convicted him of anything — but he was very plainly witnessed in the act of committing the crime. So his case is not comparable to this at all — flipping an unproven criminal allegation against a living person into a confirmed hoax, just because of the peanut gallery's interpretation of the facts, has to meet a very different standard of proof than a dead person who was very clearly witnessed in the act and then died before he could ever be charged with or tried for anything. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The prosecutor who closed the charges did not exonerate the subject. On the contrary, his office said this was an "alternative disposition": 

We stand behind the CPD investigation done in this case, we stand behind the approval of charges in this case,” Magats told the Sun-Times. “They did a fantastic job. The fact there was an alternative disposition in this case is not and should not be viewed as some kind of admission there was something wrong with the case, or something wrong with the investigation that the Chicago Police did.”  About 10 percent of the 60,000 felony cases handled by the office each year enter some form of “alternative prosecution,” a spokeswoman said.[1]

So it looks like it was a hoax, a grand jury stood behind 16 legal charges for the hoax, and the prosecution entered an alternate disposition like they do with 10% of the Chicago cases. The prosecutor never exonerated the subject. There is nothing wrong with using the "hoax" category for this article. XavierItzm (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and the prosecutor said O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder, but you won't find any "murderer" categories on his biography. Neither prosecutors nor grand juries are finders of fact. You realize that a grand jury is not an adversarial proceeding and zero evidence is introduced in the person's defense, right? Hence the legal saying, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if that's what you wanted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thou protest too much, maybe? The subject forfeited his bond and had to do community service. Clearly the subject was not exonerated. Instead, he was subjected to an "alternative disposal." Is this what happens to innocent ham sandwiches? XavierItzm (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
He'd have to be convicted of something to be "exonerated" from. He wasn't. If and when there's a court judgment or a public admission, we can revisit the issue. The fact is that reliable sources are not referring to the hoax allegations as fact precisely because they're unproven. We have to follow policy and the sources. Again, Wikipedia is not in a race to beat tabloids and gossip sites to declare people guilty of wrongdoing. We can wait for the facts to become clear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Technically, you don't have to be convicted of something to be exonerated. Exoneration happens more frequently after a conviction, but it can also happen before a conviction when the accused has been charged but not put on trial yet, and new information comes to light showing that they could not have committed the crime. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Smolett is likely to face a civil litigation against the City of Chicago if he don't pays the $130k fine [4] he was recently imposed . If this happens and the judge eventually finds that he indeed made a false report, I think it'd make sense that we categorize this article as "hoax" from now on. I feel you're being too restrictive with the "criminal conviction" criteria. Any kind of conviction should be ok in my mind.--Nonztp (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if there is a civil court judgment that he filed false documents, that would satisfy the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/empire-jussie-smollett-emergency-court-hearing/

Tawana Brawley

Breaking out the discussion down here since its in the middle of the discussion above. Copying relevant starter comments for context ResultingConstant (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to link to Tawana Brawley rape allegations in the "See also" section? I understand the cases are distinct. But they are also in some ways similar. And an encyclopedic purpose would be served by alerting the reader to that similar case due to its prominence. I've gone ahead and made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

And I have reverted it - no, "See also" sections are a weasely way of trying to draw undue attention to unsourced links betweeen two otherwise-unrelated things. If there's a reliable opinion source which draws a connection, it could be linked inline in such a discussion - as was done with "Racial hoax" and a commentator who alleged the connection. If you can't find a reliable source which makes the connection, we certainly shouldn't be creating ourselves from whole cloth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of such sources which link the cases or discuss them in the same breath.

ResultingConstant (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to a sourced section to the effect of "Commentators have compared the alleged incident to the Tawana Brawley rape allegations." That gives the link the proper context instead of just throwing it at the wall. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. Let's have a sourced section. XavierItzm (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I've made this edit. I hope it conforms to the above ideas. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's well-sourced and relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we split the Jussie Smollett#2019 alleged false police report section into a separate article?

When roughly 53% of an article's word count is dedicated to coverage of a single incident (and the relevant fallout from that incident), maybe it's time to split off that incident into a separate article? Per WP:BALASP, an article should properly weigh focus on recent events so as to not put undue attention on a relatively small part of a subject matter.

The subject is notable separately from the notability gained from the incident, by means of his career as an actor. The incident is notable separately from the subject by means of the extensive coverage it has received. What's the argument for maintaining this as a subsection of a subsection of a single article? AlexEng(TALK) 18:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

While I agree the incident meets WP:GNG, there was an RFC just above that was pretty solid WP:SNOW against it. We would need to do a new RFC to overcome that prior consensus. In any case, while the bit by bit details might be able to be trimmed out of this article, I think the amount left in WP:SUMMARY would be likely to stay relatively long. This event has received more coverage than pretty much anything else in his life, so the WP:WEIGHT is appropriate. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. I think a new RFC is appropriate. The section has changed substantially in the last month. I'll start one shortly. AlexEng(TALK) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Jussie Smollett#2019 alleged false police report section be split into a separate article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Minus a comment that didn't add to the discussion, the RfC has resulted in a snow result of "split". -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, just in terms of pure word count, the coverage of this single incident makes up over 53% of the article length. The potential split of this event into a separate article was discussed in a previous RfC (above) and should therefore require consensus in a new RfC to come to a different decision. Since March 1st, this subsection of the article has grown by 56%. All the same arguments apply: the event meets WP:GNG, WP:SUMMARY and WP:EVENT. Those who !voted some variation of "wait to split," have you changed your minds now that it has grown to overshadow most of the rest of the article content? AlexEng(TALK) 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Split The event has had significant enough and lengthy enough coverage on this page to merit being split into its own article. The subject of this article is independently noteworthy outside of the scope of this event, and therefore can retain its own article. AlexEng(TALK) 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Split I it has gotten to the point where the expansion of the section is actually making the article worse by becoming too long, a split is in order. After all, this was a widely reported incident, with reactions from all levels of American society so why not? Unless someone objects to this being on WP, I believe this easily passes WP:GNG. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Split This incident received national news coverage for a significant amount of time and the details are taking up a huge part of Smollett's biography. It's time to split it. Johndavies837 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Split. There is more than enough content for its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Split This has received significant coverage for most of the year at this point and doesn't seem to be slowing down.LM2000 (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Split (Summoned by bot) Sustained national news coverage amply justifies a a split. Coretheapple (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Snow Split - It's snowing. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Split. Two separate articles are warranted because the acting/singing career is distinct from the alleged racial hoax. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Split. Same as before. Though the numbers provided in the proposal are misleading – when counting only words the section is the vast majority of the article (I'm sure it's over 80 percent of the article). wumbolo ^^^ 18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Splitting is probably inevitable, but represents one of the the worst aspects of Wikipedians. Tripping over yourselves to keep up with anything in the news like wannabe journalists. Cram in every every fart, tweet, and quote, right? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Wow. Totally sick burn. I'm going to go reconsider my life........ But seriously, are you bashing on Wikipedians for interest in current events? Bud, you realize that's like a human thing, right? Not a Wikipedian thing? NickCT (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Split - Smollett, while not super well know, was already notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page before this incident, so BLP1E doesn't apply here. The hoax is certainly notable enough to have its own page, and should be allowed to grow without overshadowing the main article. There still needs to be an article about the person, which will briefly mention the hoax that he perpetrated, and link to that article, but not be completely dominated by that one event. So splitting is the only sensible decision. -2003:CA:8704:99F9:DD30:3CE7:FF24:F395 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Split The time has now come for a split. At this point its undeniable that this is not a temporary news. Also, so many things have been written in the medias about it that there's an endless supply of potential informations to add here.--Nonztp (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

split title

As the split proposal above seems likely to pass, lets discuss possible titles for the split. The section here is currently "2019 alleged false police report". Obviously that won't do as an article title due to lack of context. Although I expect there to be some considerable support for some variation on "alleged hoax", I think spending too much effort in that direction is likely to be wasted as unable to gain consensus, though obviously the name of the split article could be subject to change in the future if/when any legal resolutions to the case occur.

Two initial ideas :

  • [2019] alleged false police report by Jussie Smollett
  • Jussie Smollett Chicago incident

ResultingConstant (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"Jussie Smollett Chicago incident" would seem like an appropriate title. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "Jussie Smollett alleged false police report"? My concern is that "Chicago incident" was always somewhat vague and nebulous compared to the "alleged false police report" section name in the article now. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


Clearly a summary of the events must still be included in the main Jesse Smollett article. So I would suggest that the detailed article should be titled "Details of Jussie Smollett Chicago Hate Crime Allegation." It's a long title, but it should convey that (a) a brief summary can be found in the main article, and (b) the new article begins with the allegation made by Jussis Smollet that he was a victim of a hate crime.Saranoon (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that a WP:SUMMARY must be left here, but there are a great number of summary/detail articles in this situation, and none of them use the "Details of" terminology. I also think "alleged hate crime" is misleading, as virtually all reliable sources have cast significant doubt on that narrative. A neutral title is best that does not take a position on the facts of the incident, at least until such time as something definitive happens. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Calling an allegation an allegation is completely neutral, and that's the case with many articles on Wikipedia. "Alleged assault of Jussie Smollett" or "Jussie Smollett assault allegations" are titles consistent with reliable sources and BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 12:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Wumbolo In general, I agree with you. But in most of these cases you have the allegation on one side, and a denial on the other. That is not true here. There are two competing sets of allegations. I think picking which allegation to use as a title is a violation of neutrality. Is it an alleged assault of Smollet? Or an alleged false report/hoax by smollett. Both are reliably sourcable. Both have notable supporters. Until we have something more legally definitive (or the RS all end up on one side of the pile in the future), I think it is better to avoid taking a position at all in the title, and reserve that for the article where we can describe both POVs in sufficient detail. (That said, both allegations could be reasonable redirects to some more neutral title) ResultingConstant (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Government name

Please correct the spelling of Jussie Smollett's government name. It has always been legally "JUSSIE SMOLLETT" he has no middle name and nor was his name ever JUSTIN.

Please correct. thank you. 2605:E000:1524:8693:78E1:16C0:754E:7C59 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing (in the United States, anyway) as a "government name". If you mean his birth name, we have a reliable source that disagrees with you, and we rely on reliable sources here. If you mean a legal name, there is nothing in the article that indicates that it is currently anything other than Jussie Smollett. General Ization Talk 20:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
However, perhaps the lead should be changed to something along the lines of "Jussie Smollett (/ˈdʒʌsi/ JUSS-ee, born Justin Smollett, June 21, 1982) is an American actor and singer." I note that even the recent indictments use the name "Jussie Smollett", a strong indication that he has legally changed his name at some point. General Ization Talk 20:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
That would probably be a good way to handle it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

His birth name is Jussie Smollett. It was never recorded as JUSTIN. His birth certificate states Jussie. I am his publicist and I have legal documenation of his name (it has never been legally changed either). This request to change has happened twice before today's request and corrected to validate as Jussie Smollett. Meghan Hagans (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We rely on published, reliable sources here, not random claims from users. Find us and share a link to a published source that confirms this and we will make the change. We can't take your word for it, or even that you are who you claim to be. The CABI is a California state-maintained database compiled from birth records, so it is improbable that the information it relates did not come from his birth certificate. General Ization Talk 20:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@General Ization: Hello, I am an WP:OTRS agent and sometimes I assist with issues around Wikipedia's WP:Identity verification process. I do not have the answers but I do like collecting conversations about these cases. We sometimes have people write to the OTRS service asking for help with basic metadata like names. This user asked and I referred them here from private ticket:2019041510008351, which probably contains no additional information than what is public here except that the user does share a legal document confirming this person's name.
As I understand, Wikipedia does not pull in WP:Primary sources like census records for reasons described at WP:NOR and Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_note-7. This means that we would not use a database like California Birth Index and instead prefer secondary sources. Also that CBI website seems not to make any claim to be government affiliated and it runs strange ads that are not typical of a government service.
What general process should Wikipedia apply to resolve this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious Bluerasberry, what was the legal document that was supplied? Did it purport to be an original (not re-issued) birth certificate dated June 21, 1982, or was it something else dated later on? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@AzureCitizen: Leaving this case aside, if you have general guidance for what documentation we accept, the circumstances under which we accept it, and what we commit to do in response, then please add that to WP:Identity verification. I want to slow down discussion about additional information if this can be resolved in a typical manner on the basis our usual sourcing policy. On wiki conversation about published third party sources is best whenever possible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: My understanding concerning the California Birth Index (and the information found at our article on the subject) is that it is a tertiary source compiled from birth records in the state by the California Office of Health Information and Research. ("The CABI was compiled by the California Office of Health Information and Research. The records are not stored in the form of birth certificates, but rather abstracts of birth certificates.") It is a compendium that summarizes primary sources (the birth records produced by various local public health departments in the state of California), in line with the description of tertiary sources found at WP:PRIMARY. The compilation is done by a state agency, so it is not user-generated content and is not likely to contain a significant amount of misinformation or error, other than the usual level of error found in any compilation. If you have some reason to doubt that information found at CABI is reliable, please present it, and/or take the question to WP:RSN; otherwise, it seems to be serving as an appropriate source in this case. General Ization Talk 22:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have seen some other satisfactory documentation that will establish the fact in this case, I'll of course defer to your informed opinion, assuming that you have already explained to the OP why we can't make such changes just because she claims to be the subject's publicist and demands that we do so on this page. (The OP did not mention any recent interaction with OTRS. She did say: "This request to change has happened twice before today's request and corrected to validate as Jussie Smollett" and this prompted me to search this Talk page and its archive; I could find no record of any previous OTRS involvement or other resolution to the question.) It would also be helpful if there was some way to annotate this page to indicate that the name used is based on evidence submitted to and reviewed at OTRS, so that we don't have this conversation again in six months. General Ization Talk 22:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@General Ization: Let's not be hasty - it is preferable to avoid seeking authority in off-wiki discussions if we can avoid it. It seems like we might be close to consensus for closing the discussion here in a way that everyone accepts. For the general circumstance of primary source conflicts and people writing in with concerns I would discuss that on the identity page to get better support and pre-planning for what to do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
General Ization In this case, I would argue that the CBI does not meet WP:SECONDARY the way wikipedia defines it (what analysis, opinion is being done?). It is still a WP:PRIMARY source, and in fact one LESS reliable than the original record, since the copying process just leaves opportunity for error (OCR error in particular could be an issue in this case). ResultingConstant (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. WP:BLPPRIMARY makes clear that this sort of primary source should not be used, precisely because of the possibility of just such an error.Slp1 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


I am his publicist as well as I have legal documentation in order to have this issue corrected. The initial documentation was sent to the Wikipedia Editors and was corrected (under Ticket#2017020610016928) on Feb 22, 2017 and again on July 31, 2017. There has never been a legal name change ever for this person. His birth certificate and all legal documentation always reflected Jussie Smollett. Meghan Hagans (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I was also referred by the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team to create this inquiry here. Please correct his name.

In addition, I was referred by Lane Raspberry to make these edits. Meghan Hagans (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have removed the claim. Our own rules about sourcing says that this source should not have been used. Since it seems to be a repeated problem, I will add a hidden note to the article to indicate that this information should not be added again. Slp1 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk page notice

@Slp1:. Please consider also annotating the header here on the Talk page as guidance for editors on this specific issue and the use of this particular source. As you have seen, this has been an ongoing issue here for years. General Ization Talk 00:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Would you mind doing it? or at least starting it? I haven't done one before and it sounds like you might know how to set it up easily. I can always help with the wording or whatever after it has been created.Slp1 (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Slp1: See my proposed {{notice}}, to be placed in the Talk page header just below the standard BLP notice, here. Feel free to tweak the language there as you see fit. General Ization Talk 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, looks very good! I made a few minor changes but I think it is good to go. Thanks again. Slp1 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Done. Due to the idiosyncrasies of the {{WPBS}} template, the notice had to go above the standard BLP notice rather than below it. General Ization Talk 01:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
And Coffeeandcrumbs has just removed the notice without participating in this discussion. In answer to your summary, CaC, "(huh? How is a giant red sign saying don't look at that rejected source a good idea. The archive of the discussion can be used to settle future disputes on this matter.)", previous discussions over at least two years have not settled this matter for more than several days at a time. The {{notice}} template is designed for situations, like this, where there is no formal template to convey information on a Talk page about a policy that seems to need reinforcement. The idea here is to preempt disputes, not settle them. General Ization Talk 15:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeecandcrumbs: "Adding to the overgrown discussion", i.e., consensus, is how things are done here, not reversion or replacement with your own preferences based on a theory about the notice somehow encouraging bad behavior (which seems rather far-fetched to me). Inviting @Slp1 to weigh in. General Ization Talk 16:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the header, Coffeeandcrumbs. I really don't think it will hurt in any way to have a clear explanation to refer to should it happen again. But I think having the links to the discussions/decisions is a good idea too, so I will try to remember how to do that and add them.Slp1 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Slp1: I took the liberty of restoring the {{round in circles}} template (and disabling the standard Talkheader search box). General Ization Talk 23:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, though there actually isn't much about this specific issue on the talkpages unfortunately. General Ization, I have been trying to add these links to the header as discussed above. 1234 Unfortunately they seem to break the template when I add them. Do you know how to add them safely? Slp1 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Jussie-smollett-mugshot.jpg

Notice

The file File:Jussie-smollett-mugshot.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free image of mugshot of Smollet which fails not only WP:NFCC#8, but also WP:MUG. The controversy around Smollet's alleged attack, arrest, release, etc. can more that sufficiently be covered by text content and citations to reliable sources. There is really no significant improvement in the reader's understanding of any of this achieved by seeing his mugshot photo. There's nothing controversial, etc. about the photo itself which and there's no sourced critical commentary specifically about the mug shot; so, there's really no context for using it per WP:NFC#CS. The only purpose seems to be to "show" Smollet as he looked when arrested, which is a sort of image-type of WP:UNDUE and also not really acceptable per WP:BLP, even if this was a freely licensed or public domain image.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation of his name?

There is a cite on his name, and it seems a bit weird. Is it needed? Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this June 2019 BBC article that appeared to corroborate a California Birth Index entry. It had a part "real name Justin" visible as late as August 31 and still showing up on google search results, but it was inexplicably removed apparently recently in the latest version (at the behest of Smollett's PR?). (CC: nihonjoe) Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
If it was removed from the article (for whatever reason, and we'll likely never find out what it is), then we shouldn't include it. The BBC does not lightly remove content from articles. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Can someone add a hidden comment in the info box requiring strong reference for any changes? Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Just put back the one you had in there. It was fine. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
It wasn’t hidden though. It was reading still.
I also asked at WP:RSNB if anyone had a lead on Justin. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Primary sources cannot be used to for this sort of info in a BLP. Please look two sections up and the big note at the top of this very page.Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slp1:, I’m not seeing anyone suggesting on using primary sources. Personally I was asking to verify if the website itself could be considered reliable for the information. Is it true? Then I think due diligence is needed to see if any reliable sources that we can use exist. Then I foresee a discussion on how to present the information once it’s verified and reliably sourced. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
the California birth index is a primary source. It is a collection of public records. It says so right at the bottom, along with a disclaimer that they don’t guarantee the content! Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I was asking if their reporting was reliable, from what you’ve said they aren't. Is there a better source to confirm what his birth certificate actually states? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest just not worrying about it for now. If it ever comes up in an article from a reliable source, it can be added back. Until that time, it doesn't really matter in the long view. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As encyclopedia editors we focus on what secondary sources say about a topic. See WP:PSTS. This is especially true with BLPs where we have to avoid primary sources. See WP:BLPPRIMARY.
All to say, as editors we don't actually care what his birth certificate says. We have to focus on what reliable secondary sources say about his name. They do the research and we report it. To date, nobody has come up with a reliable secondary source that says his name is or was Justin. Or rather, there was one: the BBC article mentioned above. But the BBC have subsequently removed the claim, not something they would do lightly-as mentioned above. We follow these sources, and don't do our own research in the "truth" per WP:OR Slp1 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Nihonjoe, and Slp1, do we have any reliable source that says he was “born as Jussie”? If not then maybe we should remove it from the info box and amend the comment to not add any name until confirmed in a reliable source.
As far as I can tell Jussie is Justin’s nickname. I don’t see any secondary sources for what his actual birthname was. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Gleenanon409, it is really not important what your personal opinions are about his name. Wikipedia simply reports what reliable sources say about a person or topic. If no reliable secondary source mentions that someone has changed their name, then this will not be covered as a topic. But I do agree wholeheartedly that it is totally unnecessary to state that his birth name is Jussie and will remove it shortly. Slp1 (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I’m not suggesting we should do anything based on my opinion. I’m saying that we should not imply what his birth name is/was if we have zero reliable sourcing. We also have zero reliable sourcing that he has changed his name. I think we should only state what we can in reliable sources, please don’t suggest that I want to do anything but that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

And now I'm seeing that he has two middle names listed on the Allmusic and TV Guide biographies of him. So my proposal is to include those middle names in the lead while leaving the birth name blank; we do not know certainly what his birth name is (chances are that he legally changed his name to Jussie later in life). Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest asking at WP:RSNB to clarify if one or both is reliable and how to reconcile one has the two names as a AKA, while the other has as his birth name.
If valid I think that would be the first and only source for his birth name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The lead should only contain a summary of the content in the rest of the article. If it's netioned in the lead, it must be mentioned elsewhere in the article. See WP:LEAD. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Positive framing

@EvergreenFir: @Tamravidhir: @S0091: @Horse Eye Jack: we should version-delete the section about his false flag and frame it like we did in Erica Thomas' article, where we only mention that no arrests have been made yet. Thanks in advance, --178.113.195.69 (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@178.113.195.69: I do not understand with regards to what is this. I have never edited this article before and I have made only one edit so far to the Erica Thomas article and have neither been involved in any consensus with regards to these articles. Please state what you wish to be changed in "please change X to Y" format and cite a reliable source. --Tamravidhir (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh I get it, you're pretending we’re all members of some sort of conspiracy, wink wink. I rate this troll: 5/10 on planning, 2/10 on effort, and 1/10 on execution. At least use the account a bit first next time. And now to sign off as all libs do when owned: Praise Obama! Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the claims of "version-delete" aren't even accurate. Only one revision [5] seems to have been deleted in the Erica Thomas article and it was deleted for copyright violation reasons [6], as would any content violating copyright positive, negative or neutral, on any page, where it is identified. All other content remains in the edit history e.g. [7] [8]. Even [9] which hopefully is a non copyvio version of the removed content. While there is sometimes justification for WP:revision deletion of BLP violating content, this doesn't seem to have happened here yet. IP, if you are User:Ocumicho Diablos and the one who added the WP:copyvio content, then your only solution to avoid revdeletion, again no matter the tone of the copyvio content, is to stop violating copyright in your edits. Anything else and the content is liable to be revdeleted (or deleted outright if the entirety of the article is affected and there's no good revision to keep)when identified and you will be blocked if it continues. Whatever else, we take copyright serious here on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

More sources citing his name as ‘Justin’

[10] refers to Smollett as "Justin." Foreign publications also refer to him as "Justin." Is SI a decent enough source? Also [11] Elle which is likely also to be RS. [https://www.programme-tv.net/news/series-tv/224892-jussie-smollett-agresse-la-star-dempire-sort-enfin-du-silence/ ], [12] The Panther, etc.

How should we reconcile this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: You are obsessed with this, aren't you? I suggest adding a single sentence somewhere in the article body mentioning that several sources list his birth name as "Justin", but that none of the official sources use that name anywhere. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I’m determined to get it right as we can, shouldn’t we all be “obsessed” in the same way? I got curious when numerous people kept adding ‘Justin’ so decided to see what was going on.
You state “none of the official sources use that name anywhere.“ What are official sources and how do we know? Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Official sources would be his official website, information from publicity agents, and that kind of thing. None of them, as far as I can tell, use "Justin" anywhere. Regarding the four bare URL references you added, please use {{cite web}} to make the URLs more than just bare. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. I was having problems getting the Visual Editor to work, should be fine now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

IMDB, a "reliable secondary source" lists his birth name as Justin. Wikipedia is becoming less and less reliable every day because of their slavish adherence to idiotic rules. Actors are notorious for spreading false information about birth dates and names, yet the advice above is to get that information from their own websites because it is "reliable"? Come on.174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Smollett’s character was removed from the final two episodes of season five (of empire).

Added to career section.

Smollett’s character was removed from the final two episodes of season five because of the assault controversy.

From existing: https://apnews.com/b3276d9075aa437c859ed40ed2ec0661 source and https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jussie-smolletts-empire-role-cut-from-seasons-final-episode-creators-say which is also in the Jussie_Smollett_alleged_assault article. Moscowdreams (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

new charges against Smollett do not violate his right against double jeopardy

He is fighting new charges that he filed a fake claim and tried to falsely involve the MAGA movement. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/12/jussie-smollett-judge-tosses-out-actors-double-jeopardy-claim/3179119001/

Wouldn't he have to go to trial the first time for it to be double jeopardy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.40.86 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The original charges can be re-filed at any time, since he's never faced a jury for them. Legally speaking, jeopardy hasn't yet occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:7D:5515:209A:9495:6312 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing "years active" to "1991-present." If you have evidence that he has done something in the industry since January, 2019, please present this. Otherwise, 2019 was the end of his time active in industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robkeenan (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No. You need evidence he has retired to make that assertion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
He's a known fraudster, he's unemployable, and it's obvious that he'll never get another job in front of a camera. Whether he admits it or not is irrelevant. His acting career is over.2601:647:4F00:7D:5515:209A:9495:6312 (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a pretty unsupportable assumption. Charlie Sheen assaulted his wife, went right back to acting. Mike Tyson literally raped someone and went back in the ring, and is now the "star" of Shark Week. So your assumption above doesn't seem to have grounding. There are any number of people who committed wrongdoing and continued their performing careers. Your bald declaration to the contrary is meaningless here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

The incorrect authors are identified in the February 21, 2019 Chicago Sun Times reference [13] (in the 2nd paragraph of Jussie_Smollett#2019_alleged_hate_crime_hoax). In the citation, change this code: 

|first1=Sam |last2=Alice |first2=Yin

to this code: 

|last1=Charles |first1=Sam |last2=Grimm |first2=Andy


108.56.139.120 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Verb tense updates.

Is needs changed to was in many places. 107.9.181.34 (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Uh, no. He's not dead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the above editor is referring to the subject's acting career. AlexEng(TALK) 00:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Why would anyone think that his acting career is over? Mike Tyson raped a woman and remains a sought-after entertainment and sports personality. Charlie Sheen's legal troubles are legendary. We're not here to pass judgment on someone's life and works, and they don't stop being an actor just because they also happen to have committed a really dumb crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Some WP:RS say that his acting career is over, but I don't believe that to be true either. I am not a Jussie fan, but I *DO* know that NorthBySouthBaranof is correct about notoriety sometimes having no effect, or even a positive one, when it comes to actors and musical artists. I am not going to prognosticate about Jussie's future acting prospects in the article. I think that verb tense updates are probably needed in the more narrow context of the trial. I'll take a look now to see.--FeralOink (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

The “allegedly” in the summary where it says he “allegedly” staged a fake hate crime hoax, is verifiably false, and I demand that it be removed, to state unambiguously that Jussie Smollett faked a hate crime hoax.

“Allegedly” means “used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof.” However, there is ample evidence that Jussie Smollett faked his hate crime, so much evidence that he was indicted not once but twice for the crime.

Don’t be a liar. 206.251.42.28 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Indicted, but not convicted. A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law. "Alleged" is appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting criminal trial. See WP:BLPCRIME and MOS:ALLEGED. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You "demand", IP Editor? Well, not because you demanded it, but because it is now true. He was convicted.----FeralOink (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Alleged?

We was convicted. Editor8778 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Please cite the source which says he was convicted of a crime or found liable in a civil action. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Not yet but its all but guaranteed given the evidence against him. DarrellWinkler (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
He was convicted.--FeralOink (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Uh, no. His trial is currently underway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I apologize. I am wrong. You are correct. I jumped the gun.--FeralOink (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

He was convicted.174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: a mention that Smollett yelled that he was innocent following his sentencing in March 2022. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Added to the body. Probably too detailed for the lead. Le Marteau (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Birth place

From: TV Guide

Birth Name: Jussie Langston Mikha Smollett

Birth Place: Santa Rosa, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Profession Actor 198.57.61.144 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Long ago determined to be an error by the writer of the TV Guide article; Smollett was born in Santa Rosa, California. Given that you did not even specify the exact source (by link or publication date), and it has been discredited, no change will be made. General Ization Talk 22:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Convicted felon

He is now unfortunately under US federal law a convicted felon thanks to his conviction on 5 felonies.--Hmdwgf (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that is already very clearly discussed in the article. Unless a crime is the primary reason for a subject's notability, we do not note their status as a felon or any other class of criminal in the first sentence of the lead, the purpose of which is to establish the basis of the subject's notability. General Ization Talk 02:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with General Ization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, please note that "US federal law" has nothing to do with this matter. The charges of which Smollett was convicted are Illinois state, not federal, charges. General Ization Talk 02:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I never heard of this guy until the incident, which resulted in him being a convicted felon. If you think of Smollet the incident, not his acting career, is what he is best known for. He may be a notable actor, but this snafu is why he is best known. just like Harvey Weinstein is known for being a producer, but mostly known for abusing women. The first sentence on Weinstein's page describes him as a "convicted felon." Should be the same with Smollett. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The fact that you never heard of him prior to the incident does not mean the incident is why he is notable. Many people have been convicted of multiple felonies, but they do not qualify for a Wikipedia article as a result. The content of Weinstein's page does not dictate how this page is managed, or the policies that are generally applied on Wikipedia. General Ization Talk 03:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
He's not a felon until sentencing. DarrellWinkler (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@DarrellWinkler: Actually, no. He has been convicted of felony charges. Sentencing determines what the penalty will be, not the charges of which he has been convicted. General Ization Talk 16:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that outside of the United States that he is primarily known for being a convicted felon. Living in Japan we are only aware of him because he is on trial. 27.85.204.194 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You may argue that, but the achievement of notability is not based on when you or any other Wikipedia editor became aware of the subject. It is based on coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and this subject has received notable coverage since at least 2011, long before the current incident. Also, this is the English Wikipedia. We do not make decisions about content in the Japanese edition of Wikipedia, nor do editors of that edition make decisions about content here. General Ization Talk 01:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The subject may be notable for multiple reasons, but is there a standard for sorting the reasons within the article? Because I would argue that the biggest reason for notability by far, in the English speaking world or otherwise, is the hoax. And therefore it should be front and center. As in opening with: "Jussie Smollett is an American felon, convicted of perpetrating a politically and racially motivated hoax..." Bahati (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It appears, then, that you are lacking the neutral point-of-view necessary to fairly edit this article. To answer your question, see the second paragraph of this section. Smollett is notable as an actor, and that is why he has had an article in the encyclopedia since 2007. We have dedicated the entire second paragraph of the lead and a significant portion of the article to his crime and legal status, and that should be sufficient for any reader to be introduced to the subject (versus the crime, which has its own article). If not for you, please check your biases. General Ization Talk 16:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm saying he's more notable for the hoax than anything else. I suggest entering his name into a search engine for evidence. Can you support an argument that he's more notable for other reasons? Bahati (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I think I've explained my position clearly above. General Ization Talk 23:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hey, @NorthBySouthBaranof, General Ization, and Bahati: can we please wrap this up? Is there consensus to add the "convicted felon" epithet or not? Do we need an RfC or a formal closure request to end the discussion? I feel uneasy reverting lead edits based on this "ongoing" discussion every time the article gets to the top of my watchlist, and I would prefer to see some kind of finality to this one way or the other. AlexEng(TALK) 05:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Missed a lot of pings. @Pennsylvania2, DarrellWinkler, and Hmdwgf: please see above. AlexEng(TALK) 05:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I say yes.--Hmdwgf (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
There is absolutely not consensus to do so. Any such proposal will need a formal RFC, and will need to demonstrate clear reasons why we would ignore the precedents set at numerous other articles, such as Dinesh D'Souza, Martha Stewart, etc. As for drive-by vandalism, the solution is a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, we don't operate based on precedent, but it would be good to have a clear consensus in either direction. Then there should be a <!-- hidden text --> in the lead indicating that consensus so that people stop changing it. It's not clear that this is vandalism. AlexEng(TALK) 14:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
When the edit is repeatedly made by a previously-blocked edit-warrior who has clearly expressed zero interest in engaging in talk page discussion and is simply attempting to ram through their edit by force of arms, I feel confident that "vandalism" is an accurate description. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: That particular editor has now been blocked indef from editing this article, so hopefully that will relieve the OP of the need to revert their persistent and undiscussed edits here. General Ization Talk 22:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
My position is as I expressed it above, and is a "no" to adding "convicted felon" (or anything similar) to the first sentence of the lead, for the reasons I've explained. His present legal status is already discussed in the lead (in the second paragraph, where it belongs) and has its own article. General Ization Talk 22:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I support adding "convicted felon" to first sentence. It's puzzling to me that editors are arguing that his criminal status as a felon is not notable enough for the descriptor. It's probably what he's most notable for. It also has enough coverage to warrant it's own article. Probably, just as if not more notable than his film career. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It (the hoax) already has its own article (has had since May 2019). This article is not about the hoax, and the subject of this article has been notable for more than 10 years. General Ization Talk 05:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok? His conviction is still highly notable, it's the largest section in this very article. I dont' see an issue with stating the verifiable fact that he's a convicted felon. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Did you stop reading at the end of the first sentence of the lead? General Ization Talk 05:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that it's repetitive? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to say that the fact that he's a convicted felon is already clearly expressed in the lead, as well as the body, and given appropriate weight versus the other "accomplishments" which led to his notability long before his conviction. And yes, it would be repetitive to state in two separate places in the lead that he is a convicted felon, when one place (making up nearly half of the lead section) will do. General Ization Talk 05:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It is expressed, but so are his other accomplishments. The lead sentence is supposed to be like the worlds briefest summary of the person, and his felon status would be a part of his notability. I don't see a WEIGHT concern considering the national and international coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead is a section, not just a sentence. Please review MOS:LEAD and MOS:FIRST and consider whether the lead does not already meet that guidance, including not trying to cram everything that can be be said about the subject into the first sentence, and, rather importantly, maintaining a neutral point of view. General Ization Talk 05:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • An RfC might not be a terrible idea for this since this discussion hasn't produced a clear consensus. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Editors who express their parochial political biases clearly on their personal pages should not be brazen enough to edit-war over BLP. An RfC that addresses the substance of the arguments and WP Policy is needed. Not a vote, not an edit war, no 'gaming the system'. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the subject of this article has been notable for a long time. However, the subject of this article is now much more notable for his hate crime hoax than his entertainment career. It is not the reason he first became famous, but it is the reason he is now as well-known as he is. "Convicted felon" should absolutely be in the first sentence of the lead, and I'm surprised any editors feel otherwise. GrammarDamner how are things? 16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@EnlightenmentNow1792: Who are you talking about that's expressing their "parochial political biases clearly on their personal pages"? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Criminal parameters in infobox

NorthBySouthBaranof you removed the criminal parameters from the infobox here [14]. You compare the inclusion of these parameter to Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen. Those guys are in no comparison to Smollett. Smollett's notably is largely from his convictions and his crimes are covered extensively in this article, more than any other aspect of this life. This is not a petty DWI or something that had a couple days of news coverage. The parameters should be included, per WP:DUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Smollett was very notable well before this crime. ––FormalDude talk 05:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude: and what does that say? So him being notable prior to this crime means this is just not significant? Donald Trump was notable before he ever even considered running for president, that doesn't mean we don't put his office holder in the infobox. A good comparison is Roger Stone; Stone was notable before his conviction, just like Smollett, but his conviction are significant enough to be in the infobox, just like Smollett. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This is sophistry. Mike Tyson was convicted of a far more serious crime - rape - and there are no "criminal parameters" in his infobox. If that data doesn't belong in the infobox of a violent sexual offender, it doesn't belong in the infobox of someone who filed false police reports. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The question is not how serious the crime was but the WP:WEIGHT of it. Smollett's fake hate crime has much more significance in this article than Tyson's rape conviction in his article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Smollett was indeed notable and famous before his hate crime hoax. However, he became much more notable and well-known after and because of his hate crime hoax. This info absolutely should be in the infobox, just like it is in Harvey Weinstein, an example that I think someone else mentioned on this talk page. GrammarDamner how are things? 16:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree. The bulk of RS coverage regarding Smollett is related to the hate crime hoax, which is how WP:WEIGHT is directed. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Grammar's, Ernie's and Checkers' well-reasoned explaination that this is a WP:WEIGHT issue, not a severity of crime issue, and his conviction has tremendous weight in the article. Le Marteau (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Not seeing any evidence here that this conviction isn't simply WP:RECENTISM. I don't think it should be added until enough time has passed to fairly evaluate the weight this event will have, which, I believe has been the case for any such pages like Harvey Weinstein that have followed suit. It shouldn't be added the very same month it happened. ––FormalDude talk 23:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
But the Weinstein article did add the info to the infobox the very same month it happened. GrammarDamner how are things? 23:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Weinstein was convicted of serious, violent sexual assault charges stemming from attacks on multiple women over a long period of time. "Disorderly conduct" and "serial rape" are two very different types of crimes, and 150 days in jail is a very different punishment than 23 years in prison. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
As others have already said, it is not about how serious the crime is but the WEIGHT it carries in the WP article and the RS coverage. Yes, the seriousness of the crime usually is a huge factor in how big the RS coverage will be, but very different crimes can have very similar results on a person's media coverage and vice versa. Whatever that WEIGHT ends up being is what dictates the way we phrase first sentences, organize infoboxes, etc. GrammarDamner how are things? 04:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Your completely unsolicited use of profanity, as well as edit summaries calling others ridiculously uninformed and insinuating anyone here thinks rape is the same as drug possession, are tantamount to personal attacks. Please do not do this. We are all trying to collaborate here. GrammarDamner how are things? 04:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Mugshot removed - unlicensed + other concerns

The image in question has been removed from Commons with the notation "Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site", making this discussion moot. General Ization Talk 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The mugshot which was added here is unlicensed, and it doesn't appear that works of Illinois state government are in the public domain; therefore, it'll be deleted from Commons at some point soon. In addition, I don't think it adds anything to the article - we already have recent high-quality photos of Smollett to illustrate him. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

According to Illinois Legal Aid (a non-profit dedicated to serving the public) https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/mug-shots-and-criminal-history-info-internet Mugshots are the property of the government. They are a part of the public record. Most mugshots are released by state law enforcement agencies. They must be made available to the media. The police and the media are allowed to publish them.
This is due to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=85&ChapterID=2) which specifically addresses mugshots. It's clear their Act allows usage of mugshots by the public for all purposes including commercial.
... so no, the image is NOT going to be deleted from commons because I still have five days to enter this information.
Regarding your assertion that it "adds nothing" to the article, I completely disagree. Le Marteau (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Le Marteau: In your opinion, what does it add to the article? General Ization Talk 00:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The picture adds a great deal... I find it personally interesting. A person's mugshot says a lot. To me, I see a composed, buttoned-up, determined young man. It is also the first mugshot I have seen without any visible indicia of its origin, which is mildly interesting. It adds plenty to the article, to the story of his life and to tragedy that has occurred. The presence of two very flattering pictures of him does not preclude the inclusion of one more grim... I might say that the principles of editorial balance favors it. Le Marteau (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Le Marteau: So we should keep the unlabeled mugshot because you find it interesting, and because of your very subjective interpretation of its contents, not because it conveys any verifiable information to the reader not already contained in the article. And we should make it a policy to offset photographs of our subjects that some people might find attractive or that reflect a positive mood on the part of the subject by adding other photographs that are less flattering or reflect a different mood because "editorial balance". Do I have that right? General Ization Talk 00:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The picture conveys a great deal not already in prose. The picture is compelling, interesting, informative and relevant and I will not apologize for thinking that adding such content is a good thing. Le Marteau (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that it's any of those things, and there'll need to be clearly-established consensus for inclusion. We don't include a mugshot in many other biographies of actors convicted of crimes (Charlie Sheen, Sean Penn, etc.) and I don't see why one is necessary here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Mel Gibson. Robert Downey, Jr. has TWO. Le Marteau (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
That an image is "made available to the media" doesn't mean the image is public domain - it merely means there's permission to use it in certain contexts. Content which isn't public domain or released under another free license can't be uploaded to Commons. Not all works of state and local governments are public domain, as works of the Federal government are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There's a TON of Chicago and Illinois mugshots on Commons, for a ton of various reasons. I believe en.wikipedia.org allows more rationales, although this is not an area I have tread often so more work is required... it can stay a week before deletion without rationale was what I was told and the assumption I was and am working on. Le Marteau (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
If this image is free, there's not much of an argument against keeping it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There's tons of reasons to not include a free image. But the reasons given here do not cut it. Le Marteau (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, not on those who seek to remove it. General Ization Talk 01:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The only reasons I've ever heard of are (1) There's like a BLP issue, which is not the case. (2) It's not relevant to the content, which is not the case (3) There's like an image crowding issue, which is not the case. What is the reason for not having a free image, besides the one's I listed? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
See above, please. Good, sound arguments are needed for retaining the image, not for removing it. So far, I agree with NBSB that no real value to keeping the image in this article has been shown. If you are asking merely to satisfy your curiosity about what circumstances may make a free image unsuitable for Wikipedia, please ask at WP:IMAGEHELP. This discussion pertains to this specific image at this specific article. General Ization Talk 03:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
It adds a relevant image for readers. That's a good enough reason. This article needs more images in the first place. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Your saying there is no "good, sound argument" for having his mugshot in the article is ludicrous. Of COURSE there are good reasons to have it, just as there are several "good, sound arguments" for NOT having it in the article. It is not a matter of absolutes, it is a question of balance, and in this case our subjective opinions, which I respect. And although it would be nice to see removal reasons beyond WP:IDONTELIKEIT, as General Ization points out, that is not required... the onus is on those who wish to add it.Le Marteau (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I did not say that there was "no 'good, sound argument'", in the sense that none was possible; I said that I found none of the arguments for retention presented thus far, generally WP:ILIKEIT, "The other picture of him is too flattering", and "This article needs more images", convincing. General Ization Talk 19:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I have never claimed that the WP:ONUS is not on me and other supporters of inclusion. I merely contend that this image should be included I explained the reasons above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The image should be included, as similar images are included in the articles of many others convicted of crimes. GrammarDamner how are things? 17:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
With concerns of WP:MUG here are some WP:RS that link this mugshot to his crimes. Independent,[1] Insider (culture),[2] and NY Daily News.[3] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Jussie Smollett seen in new jail mugshot after sentencing for hate crime hoax". The Independent. 11 March 2022. Retrieved 15 March 2022.
  2. ^ Italiano, Laura. "Mugshot released as Jussie Smollett's sentencing judge grants his wish for protective custody". Insider. Retrieved 15 March 2022.
  3. ^ Schladebeck, Jessica. "Jussie Smollett's mug shot released after he's sentenced to jail for staging 2019 hate crime". nydailynews.com. Retrieved 15 March 2022.

Reverted close

WRONGVENUE, should be taken to WP:AN.

Close challenge

This is completely out of line. Closing a discussion which was never formally opened to begin with, when it is still on-going, and when it is only two days old is disgraceful and worthy of a trip to WikiCourt. Le Marteau (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Open it back up, clearly premature. The "no prejudice" clause does help, but these types of closings can be burdensome on editors valuable time, since they will have to rehash their arguments. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I did by reverting it. You reverted me. I've done all I can do. I will address this at ANI tomorrow. Le Marteau (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
These types of discussions are what is burdensome on editors' time. If the discussion isn't directly based in the relevant Wikipedia policy, it's pointless (because it's not going to happen if it goes against our set policy). And absolutely no include arguments were based on the criteria of WP:MUGSHOT. ––FormalDude talk 04:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
But this discussion is based on relevant policy. Some editors have said that the image can be used per Wikipedia policy. There was no reason to close this. GrammarDamner how are things? 04:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Geez, just take it to WP:AN or lets deal with it and open a new discussion. Stop with the edit warring. Frankly, I don't want to bitch about this close at AN, so the best course of action is probably just to suck it up and open a new discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Everyone from this section has supported including the mugshot, against policy. I'm sorry my attempts to get through to you have not succeeded. Please do not continue to revert the closure. Take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI if you think I am wrong. The only way I'm reverting this closure is if someone who didn't argue to include the mugshot thinks I should. ––FormalDude talk 04:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @General Ization:, @NorthBySouthBaranof: if you would like to make a comment it would be helpful. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Nothing at WP:CLOSE says or implies that this discussion should be closed. In fact, things like It is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week. say quite clearly that it should not be closed. Furthermore, FormalDude seems to be taking a very confrontational and authoritative attitude that is not helping. GrammarDamner how are things? 04:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    @GrammarDamner: WP:Closing discussions#cite note-1: "Some common causes for rapid closure include: Stopping disruptive or misguided discussions" ––FormalDude talk 04:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
What was "disruptive or misguided" about this conversation? There was no edit warring going on. There were no overly-harsh words in the convo. I added the mugshot... it was removed, and I took it to talk as we are advised to do. But you closed even that. Your closing the conversation is outrageous and the fact that you don't see that makes me question your competence. Le Marteau (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I've already explained what was misguided: every single argument that was made to support inclusion of the mugshot. None of them were policy-based. A random group of editors cannot decide that a generally accepted policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. This would have to be a change to WP:MUGSHOT, and that doesn't happen on this article's talk page. ––FormalDude talk 05:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Why can you not just follow the current policy and make a new argument based on a reliable source? Shouldn't be that hard. ––FormalDude talk 05:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)\:::
How about letting editors discuss issues on the talk page as intended, instead of barging in, imposing your will, and chastising everyone who complains about it? Le Marteau (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an invalid close, because you have no basis. You have completely misinterpreted policy, and you need to un-do this.

You paraphrase: The mugshot cannot be included without a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the relevancy of the image to the specific incident, per WP:MUGSHOT.

"Relevancy" simply means that the picture is connected to actual wording in an article. In other words, the policy prevents simply slapping a mugshot on an article for no reason, but completely allows mugshots in subsections pertaining to the crimes of the subject. Le Marteau (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I've reverted the close by FormalDude, opening the discussion back up, and will explain at WP:AN. Discussing it here is a distraction, please take it to WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

“Jussie Smollett (/ˈdʒʌsi/ /sməlˈɛt/, born June 21, 1982)[1] is an American actor, singer, and convicted criminal.” 2600:1700:E7F1:47A0:ACE2:ABAD:7927:A1AF (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the extensive discussion just above, which has established that consensus is strongly opposed to this kind of label in the first sentence of the lead section. His conviction is already reported accurately and appropriately in the lead and the body of the article. General Ization Talk 02:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

Since his years active are 1991-2019, Jussie Smollett is an American former actor and singer. 174.196.195.86 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not donePer WP:WINRS, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The fact that the infobox in our article lists his active years as having certain beginning and end dates does not mean the article can declare him in effect retired, without a source. Le Marteau (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on "convicted felon" in lead

There is consensus not to include "convicted felon" in the first sentence of the lead. Arguments against highlighted the lack of useful information this gives to our readers, the UNDUE use of it as a basic descriptor of his person, and concerns as to whether it is too soon to determine the felony conviction (not the hoax) as his reason for notability. Arguments in favor believed that either the crime/hoax, the conviction, or both were the main source of the subject's notability but their arguments do not support the wording "convicted felon" strongly enough to overcome the strength of the arguments of the voters against. Editors may wish to seek consensus for including mention of the hoax in the lead sentence at a separate RfC. A number of editors supported such a proposal, but as that was not offered as one of the options in the RfC and received limited discussion, determining consensus on that question falls outside the scope of this close and I do not prejudge its consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This RfC concerns the inclusion of "convicted felon" in the first sentence of the lead. Should the lead sentence be modified to:

Jussie Smollett (/ˈdʒʌsi/ /sməlˈɛt/, born June 21, 1982) is an American actor, singer, and convicted felon.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Opinions

  • Yes His crime is what he is now best known for, and similar BLPs have similar first sentences. GrammarDamner how are things? 22:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes Smollett is known really for 2 things: (1) his career in film (2) his fake hate crime hoax conviction. The conviction receives more emphasis in this article than any other aspect of Smollett's life, and for good reason. His conviction and crime received national media attention for months, with widespread coverage in a variety of WP:RS. Based on all of this it appears this descriptor is WP:DUE, just as due as his film career. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    That's literally textbook WP:RECENTISM - we're not a newspaper, we're here to write encyclopedic biographies with a long view, not a 24-hour-news-cycle view. It's clear that information about his conviction belongs in the lede somewhere, but putting "convicted felon" in the first sentence wildly overemphasizes and sensationalizes the crime, which we are specifically directed not to do by multiple policies, including WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No The lead section already contains a very thorough exposition of the crime of which he was convicted, when his conviction occurred and the penalty imposed, all in a neutral tone. The application of the epithet "convicted felon" in the first sentence will provide no useful information not already provided in the lead, reads like an ad hominem that implies the crime is a defining characteristic of the person rather than one aspect of his public life (hence does not conform to WP:NPOV), and is repetitive given that half the lead is already taken up with discussion of his crime, conviction and and sentence. Editors are engaging in recentism, ignoring his previous accomplishments and making gross assumptions about what the subject will ultimately be known for at the end of their career, something that cannot yet be known. That other articles may refer to their subjects in this way is immaterial to the question at hand. General Ization Talk 23:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Moved to #Discussion
 – BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No - Smollett is primarily and originally notable as an actor, and only incidentally notable for his criminal conviction - which, while exceedingly dumb, is ultimately a relatively minor and non-violent crime carrying less than 6 months' incarceration. Compare to Mike Tyson, who was sentenced to six years in prison for raping a woman - "convicted felon" is nowhere to be found in the first sentence. Nor is it to be found in the first sentence of Mark Wahlberg's biography - an actor also convicted of a violent felony. Yasmine Bleeth, convicted of felony cocaine possession - nope. Nick Nolte was convicted of a felony and sentenced to 45 years in prison - but that is nowhere to be found in the lede of his article at all. Danny Trejo was convicted of multiple felony crimes - not there either. The overwhelming majority of actors and entertainers who have been convicted of crimes do not have "convicted felon" in the first sentence of their biography, and there doesn't appear to be any good reason to treat Smollett differently - except for the fact that his crime is currently in the news and being used as a political cudgel. WP:RECENTISM applies here, and there is no immediate urgency to make this change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Per MOS:LEADREL and WP:DUE, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject. As coverage of Smollett is overwhelming related to the hoax and has been for the past three years (the BBC has at least 36 articles covering him; all of them focus on the hoax) this means we are required to include a mention of it in the first paragraph. BilledMammal (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I believe many of the 'no' !votes have a point about the difference between the hoax, which is the primary aspect of his current notability, and the conviction for the hoax, which is not - I think that is what FormalDude was trying to say. Based on that, I oppose the current proposal, but would support an alternative proposal that increases the prominence of the hoax, as the current prominence of it is WP:UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
      • You've got part of what I was saying, but not all of it. The conviction and the hoax are tied together, as the hoax was unverified and merely an allegation before the guilty conviction. Alternative proposals could not have happened until this conviction happened. For example, this proposal discussed below by Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Jussie Smollett (/ˈdʒʌsi/ /sməlˈɛt/, born June 21, 1982) is an American actor and singer who staged a hate crime against himself. couldn't have even been added until the conviction happened. So your claim that the hoax has more coverage and therefore requires more weight isn't exactly true, since all that was covered up until the conviction were allegations. Only now that the verdict is out can the impact be truly assessed, and my argument is that it's too early to assess that when it just happened less than a week ago. ––FormalDude talk 05:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No per General Ization. Keith Richards is well-known for his drug abuse and his multiple arrests and convictions, yet the first sentence of his article does not address this. It is, however, mentioned later in the introduction, and that seems appropriate for that article and for this one. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    This is an absurd comparison. Richards is primarily notable for being a key member of one of the most famous rock and roll bands of all time. Smollett was a B actor whose fake hate crime was promoted at the highest levels of American culture and society. They weren’t commenting because of his chops in the Mighty Ducks. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Smollett was not a "B actor". That you think that shows how clearly uninformed you are on this subject. ––FormalDude talk 00:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    It’s a good thing the article directly lays out his filmography so that our readers can make their minds up for themselves. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No. Per WP:RECENTISM and specifically the WP:10YT. Far too early to tell if 150 days of jail time will be impactful to his career. Just wait and see. ––FormalDude talk 23:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:RECENTISM doesn't tell us that we need to wait ten years to determine whether the current relative importance will be the relative importance in ten years - it cannot, as it would require us to have ledes that are years out of date. Instead, it tells us to avoid giving undue prominence to news spikes - and with three years of coverage, the hoax is not a news spike. For comparison, his role in Empire has been appropriately included in the first paragraph since 2015. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
      I'm not saying wait ten years, I'm saying to wait. Your argument is to add it immediately before we can possibly know its relative importance. ––FormalDude talk 00:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
      We don’t need to wait if the bulk of RS coverage clearly establishes the correct content we should add. You’re being appropriately taken to task for your policy misunderstandings about the mugshot topic, so you really ought to rethink your position here. We follow RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
      What you're suggesting is precisely what WP:RECENTISM recommends avoiding. I know you think your opinion matters as much as standard Wikipedia policy, but it doesn't. Also, I don't have any misunderstandings about WP:MUGSHOT, and you haven't even participated in that conversation. ––FormalDude talk 15:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Checkers and BilledMammal. Smollett was only previously mildly notable as a mid tier actor but has rocketed to household awareness because of his perpetuation of a fake hate crime hoax and how utterly ridiculous it was. Many prominent politicians and celebrities (including the sitting US President and Vice President) made statements supporting him. They were not supporting him because of how notable his acting career was. This effort to minimize the notability and weight the overwhelming amount of RS give it is hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No Someone telling me someone is a "felon" is useless to me... I want to know what they did, not their status as it pertains to the judicial system. If that he is a "singer" has enough weight for the first sentence, certainly the main reason most people are aware of him belongs there, too. But I'd suggest a different approach, and suggest something along these lines: Jussie Smollett (/ˈdʒʌsi/ /sməlˈɛt/, born June 21, 1982) is an American actor and singer who in 2022 was convicted of filing false police reports pertaining to an incident in 2020 where he faked an assault against himself. or similar, with some polishing of course. Le Marteau (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    That's a very long and awkward lead sentence. Split it into a second sentence and I could see some sort of acceptable compromise putting it in the first paragraph. Something like "In 2022, Smollett was convicted of filing false police reports after staging a fake assault against himself in 2020" as the third sentence of the lede, after a one-sentence capsule of his acting career. Essentially, that properly contextualizes the situation - he became notable for acting, then became notable for his crime, and the future is left open. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Which I contend is exactly what is already there, except that the discussion of his conviction is the fourth, not the third, sentence of the lead, and offset from the preceding sentences by a carriage return, which only emphasizes the contrast between the previous reasons for his notability and the later, much less positive, events that have recently contributed to it. One might think that the other editors in this discussion would welcome that emphasis. General Ization Talk 01:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No - The second paragraph in the lead that actually describes the issue is adequate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment In answer to no one specifically: I see numerous statements here to the effect that our coverage here is "dictated by RS" (reliable sources). Several editors should really rethink what that means. Reliable sources determine what we write, but not how we write it. As a reminder, we are producing an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Unlike some other media, we have a mandate, expressed in clearly written policies, to treat our subjects fairly, objectively, and neutrally, and specifically to avoid sensationalist language or place undue emphasis on sensational aspects of our subjects' public lives. The article as written accurately states the facts, based on what reliable sources report. The extent to which we go beyond the facts and seem to be willing to try and predict the future behavior of our subjects, or to label them with epithets that are reasonably interpreted as doing so, is, as it should be, extremely limited — by policy — and the current attempt to do so has absolutely nothing at all to do with "reliable sources". General Ization Talk 02:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Are you trying to say that labeling Smollett a felon implies his future conduct? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think you're so dense as to not understand my meaning. General Ization Talk 02:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    That WP:NPA was unwarranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    That was not a personal attack. That was an expression of confidence that if you will read what I wrote, you are entirely capable of understanding it, without my restating it. General Ization Talk 02:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Ok I'm sorry. You're correct. I misread your comment. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No. As MOS:FIRST says, the lead sentence isn't supposed to try and cram everything about the subject into one sentence; and "convicted felon" as a primary identifier just reads as absurd. It doesn't reflect the similar sort of first-sentence introduction you see when he's introduced elsewhere. And most importantly, contrary to what a few people are saying above, it is not his primary source of notability. It may be what he is most known for at the moment, but that is not the same thing at all - the reason his conviction matters (ie. the reason it attracted so much attention in the first place) is because of his fame as an actor and singer. Therefore, the logical way to structure the lead is to start with that, and lead into the fake hate crime and conviction later in the lead once that context is established. It does, obviously, belong somewhere in the lead, as it currently is - just not in the very first sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No Smollett is not commonly described in reliable sources as a "convicted felon" per MOS:ROLEBIO. Most sources regard him as an actor and (to a lesser extent) a singer or actor-singer, even in reports about the case (e.g., [15][16][17][18][19]). KyleJoantalk 06:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No - This looks like a case of WP:RECENTISM to me. Yes, most recent articles about him are about the court case, but in each and every one they establish that his notability is for being an actor, not for the court case or criminality. Compare to articles about OJ Simpson... they tend to reference his fame as being an acquitted yet admitted murderer, despite his career. Here, the career is pretty consistently mentioned first, and this felony thing is mostly framed as celebrity gossip, not a national issue as how OJ's case was framed. And even with OJ Simpson, we don't call out his crime in the first sentence. The mention of the hoax later in the lead is sufficient, it need not be in the first sentence as the claim to his notability. Fieari (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, With a But - While he's primarily known for the incident and the resulting court case now, he's not known primarily for the *conviction* in the court case. That controversy ought to mentioned in the first sentence, but given that the exact result of the court case isn't determinative to him being famous for the hoax/court case, simply labeling him a felon is the wrong solution. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No - adding it in the first sentence means that he is famous primarily and almost only because of his crime (like O. J. Simpson, as reference), or that his life was devoted to crime. I think this is not the case and the recent conviction is just a recent event. It might be of minor importance in the future. P1221 (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No - Saw this advertised at AN. We don't put one-word derogatory, non-specific, single-incident labels in the first sentence of the lead. Very curious that this seems to be an urgent exception among a small group of insistent editors. By way of contrast, look at the battles over this felon's lead. A cogent discussion of Smollett's weird behavior appears in today's WaPo by an eminent legal scholar here. Finally let's all keep our eyes and ears open for any hint of Smollett promotion at the highest levels of American culture and society -- would that be the Getty Museum? The Metropolitan Opera? NASCAR? the Mayflower Ball? SPECIFICO talk 12:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Start your search by pointing those eyes and ears to the current President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, many sitting Senators and Representatives, Governors, actors, entertainers, social media personalities, journalists, television hosts, and athletes and you may find something. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No Just because it reads poorly. His hoax is covered in the lede so i dont think this is really a NPOV/DUE kind of issue, its just aa question of what is the best way to present this info. Bonewah (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, and in general, lead sentences that end with "and convicted felon" are poor writing and read like attacks on the article's subject. The lead sentence should identify the subject and indicate what they're known for. If they're mainly known for crime, it might be worth noting what the crime is in the first sentence, but with something more specific and informative than just "convicted felon". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No The lead section already contains a very thorough exposition of the crime of which he was convicted, when his conviction occurred and the penalty imposed, all in a neutral tone. The application of the epithet "convicted felon" in the first sentence will provide no useful information not already provided in the lead per General Ization. It adds nothing that is not better communicated in sentences rather than 'labels', which don't even identify the crime. Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No The hate crime hoax is well covered in the second paragraph. The hoax is part of his notability, but he is not known for being a criminal or "convicted felon" per se; labelling him as a convicted felon reads more like an attempt to impune his character than to explain what he is known for, which IMO degrades the quality and reputability of the encyclopedia. Endwise (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No per others. As somebody not in US, I knew him only for his Empire role. Did not know of his conviction till now, which seems well covered in the current lead. Hemantha (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No At least not yet. As WP editors, it behooves us, especially with BLPs, to avoid hasty editing in a BLP Lede first sentence. MOS:FIRST. I suggest revisiting this in a year or so to determine if his conviction truly bears weight for the lede in the long-term. MOS:UNDUE, MOS:RECENCYWritethisway (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No Its in the second paragraph of the opening of the article. Although he is most known for this incident, it was his acting career that made this incident notableYousef Raz (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No--I'm with User:Aquillion, and this is grounds to reconsider the use of the phrase in other articles, which I have frequently wondered about. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Drmies: Should this (eventually) be opened as an RfC at WP:BLPN, or is there a better venue? Is there a way to use this debate as "starter" for that discussion, versus starting from square one? And as an experienced admin, when would you say it would be appropriate to request a SNOW close here, and possibly move the debate there? General Ization Talk 18:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I see a very similar question raised about the appropriateness of another label in the lead at WP:BLPN, which has been taken up at WT:W2W, suggesting it may be another useful venue, possibly the correct one. General Ization Talk 18:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
      • The matter is settled for and on this page. Please don't open a second RfC on it. As to the larger isssue of labels, that might be a discussion worth having and it will likely end up deciding the question is "case by case". SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
        • @SPECIFICO: Lord, no, I wasn't proposing that the consensus evidently emerging on this page be further debated elsewhere as it pertains to this article. I was responding to Drmies' thought that the phrase under discussion may well be questionable at any number of other articles, so it may be appropriate to discuss this question as it applies to BLPs generally as opposed to multiple debates on individual articles' Talk pages. General Ization Talk 19:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
        • My mistake. The issue of labels-in-the-lead comes up a lot, as you may know. This was a pretty clearcut "no" but some of them go on for years. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
          • User:SPECIFICO, User:General Ization, you're both right. No, I wasn't really suggesting we'd have this conversation someplace else, but it is a fact that this is a matter for the general BLP also. I think if we start comparing cases, as NorthBySouthBaranof did above, we will find that we need to discuss cases individually, and that general guidelines will/should be vague enough to be malleable. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
            • Actually this is a good case in point -- a label that is so egregiously misleading and unfair. I think we could agree sitewide that any labels should not grossly mislead our readers as this one surely would have done. My only other obervation is that we rarely see vague labels used in positive descriptions. "Old King Cole was a merry old soul", "Cary Grant was an American film actor and an absolute peach". It's always "conspiracy theorist" "convicted felon" "far-right provocateur". In general editors are very reluctant to use a negative label, but in the rare cases where it's DUE, they attract opposition by friends, fans, and followers. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No He's known for staging a fake hate crime against himself and later making false police reports about it, which the second lead paragraph explains, but I wouldn't say he's known for being a convicted felon. Some1 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No he is not known for being a convicted felon, that is not his main contribution to his career and like others are saying the lead paragraph explains this better already. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, in part; no, in part (possible middle ground) — I think there is a fundamental point to the argument that mere reference to being a "convicted felon" comes across as getting a dig in at Smollett. I also agree, in part, with SPECIFICO that "convicted felon" is mostly a "one-word derogatory, non-specific" phrase, especially given the number of crimes that can be charged as felonies at all levels of government. However, I do think the first sentence warrants a mention of the crime for which Smollett was convicted. I feel like this discussion has gotten too bogged down in the dichotomy of whether or not the exact phrase "convicted felon" should be in the first sentence. Granted, that is the name of this RfC, but we need not be limited to yes "convicted felon"/no "convicted felon." Take, for example Paul Manafort, former President Trump's one-time campaign manager who was convicted of and plead guilty to several felony counts during the Mueller investigation. Manafort's article describes him as "an American lobbyist, political consultant, attorney and convicted fraudster" (emphasis added). Rick Gates, one of Manafort's co-defendants, is described in the first sentence of his article as "an American former political consultant and lobbyist who pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States for making false statements in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" (emphasis added). Notice how instead of using the generic term "convicted felon," the first sentences here simply explain the crime. I think this is a good approach, because it both avoids the negative connotation of the phrase "convicted felon" and also includes objectively important information about Smollett's conviction in the first sentence. On top of that it provides a level of specificity that assuages concern about the non-specificity of the label "convicted felon." Indeed, Smollett's conviction is notable because of the nature of the crime, not the fact that it is a felony. I agree with the spirit of Le_Marteau's comment that "telling me someone is a 'felon' is useless to me." Accordingly, I have a few suggestions of what we could say in lieu of "convicted felon": Jussie Smollett is an American actor, singer, and: (1) "convicted hate crime hoaxer"; (2) "convicted hate crime fabricator"; or (3) "convicted hate crime stager." Here are some suggestions of how the whole first sentence could be reworded: Jussie Smollett is an American actor and singer: (A) "who was convicted of staging a hoax hate crime"; (B) "who was convicted of staging a fake hate crime"; or (C) "who was convicted of staging and subsequently lying to police about a hate crime committed against him." There may be some other word combinations that work better than these, but they at least are a start. Of the previous suggestions, I think (C) is the best. While it is the longest of the suggestions, it is the most specific and accurately describes the crime for which he was convicted.Freeagentjd (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
@Freeagentjd: I am concerned about forking this RfC to discuss any number of possible alternatives to the specific wording that was proposed in its opening, which is rarely constructive and often disruptive to an RfC, but the fundamental question I have for you is: how is your proposed wording different than better than the current lead section, other than the fact that a) it promotes the discussion of his conviction to the first paragraph, rather than the second (which is somewhat contra to the principles in MOS:LEAD and MOS:FIRST in that it overloads the first sentence and the first paragraph, and b) it is less neutral (contra WP:NPOV)? General Ization Talk 01:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
@General Ization: I take your points in turn. First, the notion that my proposed language "overloads the first sentence and . . . paragraph" is not accurate. We can probably agree that my proposals do "tell the nonspecialist reader . . . who the subject is." The question, then, turns to whether the proposals are truly overloaded. In particular, we need to decide which metrics help determine whether a first sentence is truly overloaded. The guidance on first sentences cautions against "describing everything notable about the subject." One way to gauge what the community considers to be overloaded is comparing the first sentences of other pages to this one. One relevant metric is the number of notable things listed about a subject in the first sentence. Using this metric, your position seems to be, at least implicitly (if I am incorrect, please feel free to correct me), that the number of notable qualities about a subject that should be listed in the first sentence is, more or less, capped at two (here, "actor and singer"). While that position may be defensible in a vacuum, it does not appear to be shared by the community.
In fact, my (admittedly) cursory review reveals that first sentences commonly contain more than two notable qualities about a subject. Here is just a small sampling: Jean-Luc Cairon ("[1] French gymnast, [2] coach and a [3] convicted felon"); Peter Cammarano ("an [1] American disbarred attorney, [2] former Democratic politician and [3] a convicted felon"); Liv Løberg ("[1] a Norwegian practical nurse, [2] a former politician for the Progress Party and [3] a convicted felon"); Charles M. Lieber ("[1] an American chemist, [2] pioneer in nanoscience and nanotechnology, and [3] a convicted felon"); Matthew F. Hale ("[1] an American white supremacist, [2] neo-Nazi leader and [3] convicted felon"); GypsyCrusader ("[1] an American far-right political commentator, [2] streamer, [3] white supremacist, [4] former Muay Thai fighter and [5] convicted felon"); Ernest Garcia II ("[1] an American billionaire used car businessman, [2] owner of DriveTime, [3] convicted felon, and [4] major shareholder of Carvana"); Jordan Belfort ("an [1] American entrepreneur, [2] speaker, [3] author, [4] former stockbroker and [5] convicted felon"); Darleen Druyun ("[1] a former United States Air Force civilian official, [2] Boeing executive, and [3] convicted felon"); Denis Verdini ("an Italian politician, banker, and convicted felon"); Ronald A. Weinberg ("[1] an American-born Canadian former television producer and [2] businessman and [3] convicted felon [4] best known as the co-founder of the CINAR animation studio (later to be known as Cookie Jar Group, now renamed as WildBrain), and [5] its co-CEO during a scandal that eventually brought down the company"); Bruce McNall ("[1] a former Thoroughbred racehorse owner, [2] sports executive, and [3] convicted felon [4] who once owned the Los Angeles Kings of the National Hockey League (NHL) and the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian Football League (CFL)"); and Joe Halderman ("[1] a television news writer, [2] director, [3] former producer for CBS News, and [4] convicted felon").
If you are right, then it seems all of the above articles need to be edited on the basis of MOS:FIRST.
Additionally, the above cited articles categorically refute the argument that mentioning one's status as a "convicted felon" (an objective, verifiable, indisputable fact) is "less neutral." Again, if you are right, then all of the above articles would need to be edited on the basis of NPOV. To the extent neutrality is an issue, my proposals solve that objection by using language that does not contain the negatively connotative term "convicted felon."
Accordingly, my proposals are better than the status quo, because they are more in line with the pattern and practice of how the first sentence is written on subjects who possess many notable qualities. Freeagentjd (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I wanted to confirm, and you have done, that the main thrust of your argument is other articles do it. General Ization Talk 18:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
No worries! While no method is perfect, I think examining other articles is one of the best ways to gauge how the community interprets and understands the MOS:FIRST guidelines. In the absence of specific guidance on the issues of (1) how many notable qualities to include in the first sentence and (2) the propriety of including criminal conviction information in the first sentence for subjects with two or more notable qualities one of which is said criminal conviction, it is not clear what other methods or metrics one could use to get a feel for how the current guidance is implemented in practice. The benefit of looking to other articles for guidance is that it leads to greater consistency. Freeagentjd (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is one of the things he is most notable for but not as notable as the two things (at the moment but that could change in future). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
No, the conviction is obviously something that should be worth mentioning within the first few sentences, but in general, it certainly falls under WP:UNDUE to shoehorn it into the first sentence. Curbon7 (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
No, the staging of the hate crime is already included and needs to be included. The resulting felony conviction is egging on the obvious.--Seggallion (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Moved from #Survey
 – (ec) Previously hatted, as the discussion was neither productive - neither editor was going to agree - nor beneficial for uninvolved editors due to its length. Hat was reverted with the summary If an uninvolved editor wants to hat this, that's fine, but an editor expressing opinions in the RfC should not be doing so - you may not like that I've exposed a main argument about this issue as being ridiculously uninformed, but you don't get to decide to hide it; I hope this move is more acceptable. I would also suggest that both User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers step back from this discussion; it has been open for only four hours, and together the two of you have made nineteen comments and written over two thousand words - more than all the other contributors combined. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The crime is a defining characteristic of Smollett and is neutral because this is what's emphasized about Smollett in RS. You say it's repetitive because half the lead is already taken up with discussion of his crime, well the other half of the lead discusses his film career. Should we go on ahead and remove actor and singer, since it's "repetitive"? It's hard to call this a WP:RECENTISM issue since it's been covered for the past 3 years. There's no ignoring of his previous accomplishments, no one is advocating for content related to his film career to be removed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    The other half of the lead discusses his film and TV career because that is the original reason he became notable, and because the article describes a substantial body of work in those disciplines. No one has suggested that it, or anything else, be removed; this is an RfC concerning the introduction of new content, on which the onus is on those who propose to add it. Read WP:RECENT again, please; 3 years is not anything approaching the length of his career so far, nor the life of an encyclopedia. That the BBC has written primarily about his legal troubles simply addresses the primary reasons for his notability in the UK, a place where he may have been far less well known for his other exploits (as are UK film and TV actors, generally, in the US), not in the English-speaking world that we serve. General Ization Talk 23:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    WP:RECENT is for standard news stuff like X was arrested for DWI and it's in the news for a week and that's it. If it becomes to a point where it's extensively covered in multiple WP:RS and the crime and convictions are highly publicized (for a period of years) it's no longer recentism. This is more of a question of WP:LEAD and WP:DUE. The lead is supposed to give a comprehensive summary of the article, and the first sentence is not giving that by ignoring his fake hate crime convictions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Your definition of what WP:RECENT is for or not is, well, just, like, your opinion, man. Mike Tyson literally raped a woman and it's not important enough to be in the first sentence of his biography, yet you think disorderly conduct should be? Nah bro, that's just absurd. This is the textbook definition of RECENTISM - shoehorning something in literally days after a conviction and/or sentencing. This may end up defining him, and if it does so, we can add it at that point. But it may end up being nothing more than Tyson's rape conviction - ultimately a blip in history, even as a far more serious crime with an actual victim of sexual violence. We can't tell that now, so we should do the responsible thing and wait. We aren't a tabloid and we aren't here to pass judgment on people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Can you explain any policy or guideline that says the severity of a crime is an appropriate factor when determining whether or not content is DUE in a lead. What matters is coverage in RS, and this conviction is the cusp of the 3 years of coverage from the hate crime hoax. If it's 20 years from now and Smollett is the supreme leader of the world this may not be DUE, but right now this is what he's known for and what RS has said about him. Donald Trump was notable for literally 40 years before he was president, that doesn't mean we don't say he was president in the lead just because this all popped up in the last 4 years. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    So your stated position is that the severity of a crime has no impact on the crime's notability or due weight? That's absurd. We are not required by any policy or guideline to label every single person ever convicted of a felony crime as "a convicted felon" in the first sentence of their biography. You're stating that anyone ever convicted of felony DUI or drug possession should have "convicted felon" put in the first sentence of their biography? Again, absurd. Not all felony crimes are of equal importance, severity, or impact on society, which is a major problem with the "convicted felon" verbiage - it both says too much and not enough. Someone who has committed violent rape is inherently different than someone who failed to file a tax return, even though both might be felonies. The due weight accorded to any given crime should certainly be, in some respects, based upon the severity of that crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    You're mischaracterizing my position. I'm not saying everyone convicted of a felony, whether it be 1st degree murder of DWI, needs to have convicted felon added to their lead sentence. I'm only saying it's appropriate when the RS emphasis is enough for that to be done. Smollett's crimes have enough emphasis in RS reporting for the last 3 years to meet that. There's a reason his crimes are damn near half the content in this article. On a very basic level the severity of the crime is not important, but RS is unlikely to chat about a celebrities DWI enough for it to warrant a lead mention, that's just because of the nature of the crime. It's true that more severe crimes are more likely to reach importance for the lead, but that's only true because RS doesn't and shouldn't care about petty crimes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    And thus we come right back to RECENTISM - we have no idea at this point whether a conviction for a victimless felony will be defining or not, given that we are merely days removed from sentencing. Policy strongly suggests that we err on the side of caution in these matters. If we come back in five years' time and Smollett has gone right back to his acting career, we'll look quite stupid and biased for defining him in a way that we don't define Martha Stewart or Mike Tyson or Mark Wahlberg, to name three other personalities convicted of felonies. So we should wait. Maybe you'll be right - and in that case, we can make a judgment about him detached from recentism and sensationalism. We're writing biographies here, not scandal sheets, and I defy you to find me the biography of Martha Stewart or Mike Tyson in which the first sentence includes the words "convicted felon." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Tyson and Wahlberg's convictions have never reached national coverage, considering the extent of their notability, to emphasize their convictions in the first sentence. It's simply not significant to their notability. It also looks like Wahlberg's crimes may have a bit of WP:UNDUE emphasis in his article body, but I regress. Stewart's article is a little different, I wouldn't say I'm opposed to emphasizing her convictions more, as they have received coverage for a while. However, Smollett's convictions are probably his primary name to fame at this point, more so than his b-list acting career. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Tyson's convictions have never reached national coverage - are you fucking serious? This might be the wrongest thing I've ever seen written on Wikipedia. I mean, this is the literal and incredible definition of RECENTISM. Mike Tyson's rape charges and conviction made national headline news for months and years. His statements made news, his victim made news, his conviction made news. Let me know when there's longform journalism about the 25-year legacy of Jussie Smollett's conviction published in multiple major publications. Let me know when Jussie Smollett's conviction ends up published in a journal indexed by PubMed. How old were you in 1992? Were you even alive? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You're taking my comments out of context; what I said was: Tyson and Wahlberg's convictions have never reached national coverage, considering the extent of their notability, to emphasize their convictions in the first sentence. I said after taking a well rounded look at the significance of all the coverage regarding these highly notable people, it appears as though there hasn't been enough to warrant a lead mention in the first sentence. That's the reality of their articles right now. So apparently the wrongest think you've seen on Wikipedia is the reality of the Tyson and Wahlberg pages. If you believe that Smollett's convictions are just recentism, then you should go remove 90% of the "2019 hate crime hoax" section and propose for the article Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax to be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS. You're arguing against what's already in place, a long paragraph about his crime and an existing article. The fact of their existence says the WP:WEIGHT is there. The lead should reflect the article (WP:LEAD), and that's all I'm advocating here for, since 50% of the article is about his hate crime hoax. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no context in the world which can save that statement. It demonstrates utter ignorance of the past and a commitment to sensationalistic RECENTISM in editing rather than the crafting of dispassionate, historically-contextualized biographies. I believe policy and practice directs us to write the latter. You apparently don't.
If your argument is that Mike Tyson's biography doesn't include "a convicted felon" in the first sentence because the historical context 30 years later doesn't justify it... then that would infer that we should not include "a convicted felon" in the first sentence of Jussie Smollett's biography precisely because we don't have the historical context to understand whether or not it is justified. Policy and practice direct us to err on the side of caution when it comes to sensationalistic claims about people's lives. Calling someone "a convicted felon" in the first sentence of their biography is inherently sensationalistic. Maybe in 30 years, it will be justified to put that in the lede of Smollett's biography. But we cannot make that judgment now, mere months after his conviction and only days after his sentencing. There is no hurry, we do not need to rush to judgment, and we can afford to take a long view of Smollett's life - not one dominated by today's headlines. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I would like this to stop soon because it dragging out and we've both made our claims. It's not "historical context" it's emphasis considering WP:DUE and MOS:LEADREL. What we have right now is an article with content, and the lead should reflect that content. Now things can change in an article because everything is always changing, and that's not embracing recentism. That's just updating Wikipedia. RS coverage can change and we will change with it, but right now the coverage of Smollett as a whole is on his hate crime hoax. Simply speaking, that's what RS emphasizes. What you're doing right now is like saying Smollett may be leader of the world one day, which will trump his music career to be nothing in his overall notability; therefore, it's recentism to say he is a singer. That's just not how we work here. I'm done now engaging in this lengthy discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove "convicted sex offender" from the first sentence of Harvey Weinstein. We don't have the historical context to understand whether or not it is justified. Maybe in 30 years, it will be justified, but we cannot make that judgement now. He's had a much longer and more decorated career in entertainment than Smollett. We can afford to take a long view of Weinstein's life, not one dominated by today's headlines. There is no deadline. GrammarDamner how are things? 16:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that is a question to be discussed and decided at that article's Talk page, not here. General Ization Talk 16:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Weinstein was convicted of serial sexual assault by force, threats, and violence, committed repeatedly over a period of decades. Smollett was convicted of filing false police reports associated with a single act of fraud. You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should treat these two wildly-diverging sets of facts and wildly-different sorts of criminal acts as if they are exactly the same. I submit that that makes no sense whatsoever. It may well be that a person of Weinstein's profile convicted of such serious crimes of sexual violence - coupled with the leveraging of his position of extreme power in the industry to perpetrate and cover up his crimes - has already had the historical die cast in their case. If you wish to challenge the inclusion of that language in that article, you're welcome to do so over on that article's talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
That equivocal suggestion about Weinstein strikes me as a WP:POINTy WP:BLP violation. I'd remove it except for the Streisand Effect. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that wasn't obvious, but my "suggestion" was meant to show that including "convicted felon" in the first sentence would indeed be in line with WP policy, as so many similar BLPs have similar first sentences. @NorthBySouthBaranof: again, please stop insinuating that anyone here thinks rape and fraud are the same. Your personal attacks and profanity are getting to be a bit much. As many others have said, it's not the severity of the crime that matters here but the coverage that the incident received in RS. If a person had received this much coverage for doing a handstand or changing their shoes or ______, that would belong in the first sentence too. GrammarDamner how are things? 16:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarDamner: You are the one insinuating that we should treat Smollett's article the same as Weinstein's. My observation that your argument is specious because their crimes are of wildly-differing severity and hence in no way comparable is in no way a "personal attack" - it is a well-grounded comment on the validity of your argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, NorthBySouthBaranof, I am saying we should treat BLP's the same, in this case with regards to the first sentences and infobxes. But no, NorthBySouthBaranof, no that does not mean that I (or any other editor here) think that rape is the same as fraud or drug possession. When someone points out that the severity of a crime is not the deciding factor in whether or not it should be included somewhere in a WP article, and you immediately jump to saying they think rape is the same as drug possession, that is indeed a personal attack. It looks like consensus is against including "convicted felon" in the first sentence. I disagree, but I respect that. All I'm saying is that you should please try to be a little more civil, it's not a lot to ask. GrammarDamner how are things? 22:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarDamner: And you are once again completely mischaracterizing this entire discussion, which is not about whether or not [a crime] should be included somewhere in a WP article. The crime is accurately and rather completely reported here, as completely as is appropriate given that the crime has its own article. What is being discussed is how the subject of this biographical article should be described in its first sentence, and whether his crime should be reported in such a way as to strongly imply that it is a defining characteristic of the subject. The nature of the crime most certainly factors into that discussion, and those who keep drawing parallels between this article and articles concerning criminals convicted of violent murders and years-long histories of sex offenses can hardly claim that they are just being "collaborative" and that their motives are misunderstood. Sometimes even in a civil debate you need to call a spade a spade. General Ization Talk 22:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not mischaracterizing anything. I indeed was discussing how this subject should be described in the first sentence. Many editors have said that based on RS coverage, Smollett's crime is one of his defining characteristics. Many editors have also said that there is no policy that says that the severity or nature of a crime determines whether or not to include it in the first sentence. It appears many disagree. That's fine, I respect consensus. I hope everyone can respect that those participating here are doing so in good faith and not resort to personal attacks. GrammarDamner how are things? 22:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion of incivility, collapsed as off-topic
@GrammarDamner: I have reviewed every word that @NorthBySouthBaranof has written in this discussion, and I have yet to find anything that even remotely constitutes a personal attack. Describing an argument as "specious" or "absurd" is not a personal attack. I do see above where NBSB questioned another editor about whether they were "even alive" when a historical incident (which that editor proposed to equate to this one) was mentioned, but that is not a personal attack (and actually, even if NBSB had stated that they were not alive, it would not be an attack, or outing; the editor in question has voluntarily revealed their relative youth on their user page, which makes it reasonable to question their knowledge and understanding of events — and their prominence in media — that occurred long before they were born). If you are going to lecture other editors about civility in this public discussion and accuse them of personal attacks, you'll need to be specific. General Ization Talk 23:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I provided a diff where NBSB said that someone thought rape and drug possession were the same thing in the edit summary. If that's not a personal attack on one's character, I don't know what is. NBSB's use of profanity was also completely uncalled for. I've already said that I respect that consensus is against the proposal I supported. I don't think civility is too much to ask for. GrammarDamner how are things? 23:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
So you believe that NBSB's comment in a completely different section of this page insinuates a personal attack. Is that right? How exactly does one insinuate a personal attack? As to why you are being questioned about your request for civility (per your ES), part of civility is not leveling unfounded accusations at other editors. General Ization Talk 23:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, but you say that it was NBSB's edit summary that was the problem. It was: r, of course notability is based on the severity of a crime! or are you claiming that rape is the same as drug possession? That, my friend, is called a rhetorical question (of the form "Do you believe the Sun rises in the West? Of course you don't, and that is my point"), not a personal attack (or even an insinuation of one). Please learn to tell the difference, because you'll encounter it often here. General Ization Talk 00:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I think rhetorical questions/statements are fine to use when explaining something. In fact, I used one myself here. But in this context, given NBSB's overall abrasiveness and use of profanity, as well as saying "are you claiming that rape is the same..." instead of "is rape the same...", that's a personal attack on one's character. Furthermore, when I made my rhetorical statement, someone who disagreed did not simply say, "Of course we shouldn't remove that from Weinstein's article, we see your rhetorical point and disagree with it." Instead, they accused me of being WP:POINTy. I'm not asking for anything drastic here. I've already said that I respect consensus to not include "convicted felon" in the first sentence at this time. I'm simply saying that we can all try to be a little more civil in the future. It's much better for collaboration. I think (or at least hope) that we can all agree that there was no need for profanity. I know I haven't misinterpreted WP:Civility, despite the fact that this is far from the first time I've encountered profane incivility on WP. When someone says something like, "Okay, everyone, I disagree but respect consensus, let's just please not use profanity in the future", and receives backlash for saying that, it gets very discouraging and tiring. GrammarDamner how are things? 15:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarDamner: If you're referring to NBSB's are you fucking serious? above, I think you need to try to find some perspective as to where you are, and what is reasonable to demand of other editors here. You and I may choose not to use that type of language here, but it is part of the vernacular, and by no means represents a personal attack on anyone. Editors here are permitted to express frustration with each other's arguments, and it was clear that that was the context for NBSB's comment. If you can't handle that kind of minor drama, you should strongly consider not participating in these kinds of discussions. General Ization Talk 15:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
And you should strongly consider reading Wikipedia:Civility. If someone can't handle a "minor" debate without resorting to profanity, they should strongly consider not participating in these kinds of discussions. It's sad that so many editors show so little care for (and sometimes disdain for) such an important pillar of this project. Being kind is a great way to "make the Internet not suck." GrammarDamner how are things? 16:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
"convicted sex offender" does actually tell you (briefly) what Weinstein was found guilty of - whereas "convicted felon" might as well say "bad person", it tells one almost nothing. Without taking sides in the "how - relatively - bad was Smollett" discussion, there are sound stylistic reasons to not use this (very grapeshot-ish) label. Pincrete (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Even though I support inclusion, I do understand the vagueness argument. It might be better to make a compromise in which instead of a term such as "convicted felon" we actually say what he did in the first sentence. For example: Jussie Smollett (/ˈdʒʌsi/ /sməlˈɛt/, born June 21, 1982)[1] is an American actor and singer convicted for crimes related to staging his own hate crime. However, this would require modification to the second paragraph of the lead to avoid redundancy. What would likely happen is a standalone first sentence followed by a lead paragraph detailing his film career then a lead paragraph detailing the hate crime hoax. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Please explain how and why you believe that what you've described is preferable to the existing two paragraphs of the lead, other than fulfilling your demand that his criminal history must be discussed in the first sentence of the lead, rather than in the second paragraph of the lead section. "It's a compromise" isn't really a strong argument for a change, especially one that barely remedies the objections already outlined above. General Ization Talk 02:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Agree. It's really not a "compromise" at all. It's just a more emphatic smear. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Can you please explain how explaining the truth as reported by RS extensively is a emphatic smear? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Let's try to put this to rest once and for all. Your repeated invocation of "reliable sources" as a justification for your change is completely off the mark, as I thoroughly explained in the comment I added to the structured responses above. The article as currently written fully and accurately reports (not "explains") "the truth" according to reliable sources. What you insist on doing is going beyond "the truth" to present the subject's criminal conviction as something the reader must urgently be made aware of, when there is in fact no such urgency. You are attempting to frame the subject in terms of his criminality, when there is in fact a good deal more to say about him that is already being said. I don't know quite why this seems to be your objective, but it is not in keeping with the objective of the encyclopedia. General Ization Talk 02:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm merely saying that his crimes are at the same or similar significance as his film career. I'm not defining him by his criminal history, just giving it equal weight to his career, which is what is done in this articles body. If you are really concerned about mentioning his conviction we could just say he faked a hate crime against himself. Example: Jussie Smollett (/ˈdʒʌsi/ /sməlˈɛt/, born June 21, 1982)[1] is an American actor and singer who staged a hate crime against himself. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @General Ization: You hit it dead on your comment about my position. The reason this is preferable is because his crimes need a mention in the very first sentence of this article. Without his crimes being mentioned we are ignoring the most significant aspect of Smollett's notability. The current set up glosses over what's important and mentions it as as almost a side thought in a second paragraph rather than what's primarily significant. His b-list acting career did not make Smollett a household name, it was his hate crime hoax. At least 4 of the "No" votes are primarily based on the specific wording "convicted felon", at least one say they want it like the compromise I've proposed. Therefore, it seems as a worthy compromise. Another idea, originally introduced by NorthBySouthBaranof, was to mention this in a second sentence in the first paragraph, which I also see as a potentially good compromise. It could be something similar to O. J. Simpson's first paragraph. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    The audacity to compare this to O. J. in any way. ––FormalDude talk 02:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Unlike Smollett, O.J. wasn't even found guilty. Some could say it's astonishing that charges that a fair jury found a man innocent of are being mentioned in the second sentence of his Wikipedia article, but that's a discussion for Talk:O. J. Simpson. Furthermore, I never made a comparison between the crimes O.J. was charged with and the crimes of Smollett. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    I think it's obvious to anyone reading this discussion that you either really, really DONTGETIT, or you're getting away with some serious CPUSH. ––FormalDude talk 03:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    FormalDude, please assume good faith. Anyone could just as easily say that you are not getting that so many similar BLPs have similar first sentences, or that you were POV pushing when you prematurely closed discussions and then closed discussions about your said closures. We are all trying to collaborate here. GrammarDamner how are things? 16:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    OJ Simpson's article does not mention the crime or trial in the first sentence, only in the first paragraph. Anyway, I agree that it's a dubious comparison - the Simpson trial was one of the biggest media spectacles of all time. This is not comparable. --Aquillion (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Aquillion: go read my comment. I was proposing a compromise to have it in the second sentence (aka the opening paragraph), like OJ's article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    Stop comparing Smollett to Simpson, or even to Tyson, in any way. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    Stop mischaracterizing my comments. Thank you! :) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actor?

Surely he is a "former actor" as he hasn't worked since his race hate activism, and is probably unlikely to work again. Rustygecko (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not up to us to determine whether he is, or is not, a "former actor". Until we have reliable sources saying so, he remains an "actor". Le Marteau (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

In the subheading '2019 hate crime hoax,' in the paragraph beginning, 'On March 16 2022,' the last two sentences should be merged, as they are two parts of one sentence. The sentence should read, 'Smollett's attorneys also argued before the court that Smollett's health and safety would be in danger during his incarceration, an assertion that prosecutors disputed.' (Otherwise the second sentence makes no sense.) 185.182.71.34 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for pointing this out! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"2019 hate crime hoax" section too long

As there is a full article on this legal case called Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax, it seems that the section in this biographical article is too long and is inevitably duplicating information. I'm going to start trimming it back a bit. Seaweed (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. Given we have an article on it, we don't need such extensive detail here; we should just be summarising the most important bits. Endwise (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Good luck with the trim. I'd aim for something like three paragraphs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I've edited the section down a bit without losing the main events (which there are many). I don't like to delete references, but now there are probably too many. It'll be harder to take out uncessary references.Seaweed (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding neutrality.

Why isn't this little punk ass in jail????? Somebody please tell me that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:747F:B308:54D6:88C9:5870:86FA (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Why can Derek Chauvin’s page intro mention that he is a convicted murderer but this page cannot mention in the intro that this scumbag is a convicted race hoax perpetrator? 2001:8003:8404:D800:8D95:7466:7EF:DAC8 (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing of your question provides the exact answer to your question. We do not make decisions about this page based on what currently appears at Derek Chauvin. General Ization Talk 17:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, Wikipedia is unfortunately notorious for its inconsistent application of editorial standards. Instead making snarky, poorly worded comments, you might consider trying to improve the project.
2601:18F:4101:4830:F886:2905:1DC1:5771 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, Derek Chauvin's sole reason for notability is the act that led to his conviction. Smollett was notable for his work as an actor for more than 15 years prior. General Ization Talk 17:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

insufficiency of the 2019 recap

I happened to be reading an article on the appeal of Jussie Smollett, and I found myself clicking his Wiki page. After reading the 2019 Hoax re-cap given here, it's blatantly obvious that Jussie supporters/sympathizers have influenced the page to leave out key information regarding what really happened. For instance, the way it reads is absolutely misleading. It reads as following "Smollett told police that he was physically attacked outside his apartment building along with the use of racial and homophobic slurs" goes on to medical treatment and then to charges filed.

1.) This gives the impression it was just a police-report phone call that was" found out to be false". That sentence should read "CCTV footage shows Smollett rehearsed, staged and acted out an attack against himself, hiring two brothers who told jurors that Smollett hired them to carry out the attack in January of 2019 using racial and homophobic slurs as directed"

2.) The way it currently reads, would leave readers thinking this whole thing was just verbal. As in "he just lied to police, that's that it." If that was the case, Smollett would have gotten off easier. This was 1.) Staged with CCTV footage showing the dress rehearsal 2.) premeditated, with phone records showing communication on "what to buy" for the attack 3.) the hiring of perpetrators at $3,500 a piece 4.) instruction to verbally abuse and assault him using slurs.

Fixing this doesn't add to much weight, won't be excessive but will stick to the facts and the gravity of the situation at play here, while being true to readers. Sufficient half (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Jewish

Before this gets into an edit war and people start getting blocked, we FOLLOW THE SOURCES, and if needed, come here to discuss. We don't inject our own original research into the article. ie: if you want to refuse sources, do it with other sources. This is in reference to Sellpink. Frankly, I could give a damn less, I was simply patrolling, but when someone starts removing citations and then contradicting them, a discussion is needed FIRST. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I did find an article where Smollett refers to himself as a "man of faith" and an interview where his sister states that they celebrated both Christian and Jewish holiday. Sellpink (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The article NEVER stated that Smollett was Jewish by the way. It only stated that his father was. Once I made that edit, another editor hastily added that he was indeed Jewish and used the aforementioned Jpost article that refers to him a "Jewish" once without further context or clarification. The entire citation is predicated on the headline and one single blurb "the actor — who is gay, black and Jewish." Is that really sufficient citation on Wikipedia? Sellpink (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
What is being purported to be a "reliable source" is a passing mention in Jpost which refers Smollett as "Jewish" (which he is only ethnically). The reference is only a passing mention and offers no other context in an article about his crimes. Given that Jpost has regularly misidentified people as Jewish before. this would seem to indicate that they may not be the most accurate source, to begin with. After extensive searching, I can find absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Smollett was raised Jewish, that his mother converted to Judaism, or that he did at a later date. There seems to be no actually researched source to indicate that Smollett was raised Jewish. A passing mention in an article about his crimes, which offers no details or citation itself hardly seems to be a solid, or valid citation. The article actually never claimed that Smollett was Jewish in the first place, only that his father was. The entire contention that Smollett is Jewish is dubious at best and the "source" is questionable, if not laughable. Sellpink (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This has now been exhaustively discussed on your Talk page. There is no need to relitigate it here. The consensus there was that, without a source that explicitly describes Smollett either as not Jewish or as something other than Jewish, the categories and other content that describe Smollett as Jewish are supported by the cited sources and should remain. General Ization Talk 13:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
And that's why I'm discussing it here as was suggested. You seem to be attempting to intimidating me into not particpating. Concencus is open to the entire community. The man has apparently never practiced Judaism, nor identified as Jewish but we need to disprove that he is based on an anemic source? I can't question that because you don't like it? Sellpink (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
What you seem to be doing is forumshopping. You can participate constructively any way you like. My point was that relitigating the question here, after receiving consistent and unambiguous opinions from multiple editors on your Talk page within the last 24 hours, is not constructive. General Ization Talk 14:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm making my point once as most editors won't be aware of your comments or my comments on my talk page. I have abided by the consencus and have made no further edits on the page. If I find information from a credible source that Smollett does not practice Judaism (or does) I will post it on the talk page first, which I would believe is appropriate. I just want other editors to be able to see our points and comment on them. If the community sees my contentions as invalid, mistaken or incorrect, I will obviously respect that. In the meanwhile, I have questions and I've been searching for someone better versed in Wiki policy to give me some guidance. Sellpink (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The multiple editors who came to the consesus numbered just three to be specific. Sellpink (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"staged"?

If the case is still on appeal, is the article violating the BIO rules for living persons by stating "In January 2019, Smollett staged a fake hate crime against himself". If he wins his appeal, don't we have to change that? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Smollett staged the alleged hate crime. The appeal involves a variety of legal issues concerning his trial and his sentence, none of which are that he is actually innocent. General Ization Talk 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"somewhat ironically"?

In the last sentence of the "2019 hate crime hoax" section, paragraph 1, it is said that Smollett "somewhat ironically" selected two black men to carry out the racially motivated attack, thus implying that it would be impossible for a black person to hold racist views towards black people, or in this case brown or biracial people.

The statement need not be loaded with such an implication. 213.191.178.248 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Good catch Those POV words were added by Geranium1001 on 17 July 2023. You are right. They were not an improvement, so I have reverted them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jussie_Smollett/Archive_2&oldid=1188066619"