This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs) at 22:55, 20 February 2022 (→Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2022: Removed edit request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:55, 20 February 2022 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs) (→Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2022: Removed edit request)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)BIRTH NAME – PLEASE READThe use of primary sources in general, and the California Birth Index and FamilySearch in particular, to source claims that the given name of this subject at birth was anything other than their current name is precluded by the Biographies of living persons policy (BLP), specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY. Claims thus sourced will be reverted. Under the BLP policy, only reliable secondary sources may be used to establish the birth name of a living (or recently deceased) person. |
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jussie Smollett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
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 seems to have been deleted in the Erica Thomas article and it was deleted for copyright violation reasons , 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. . Even 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’
refers to Smollett as "Justin." Foreign publications also refer to him as "Justin." Is SI a decent enough source? Also 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/ ], 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)
- 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
IMDB, a "reliable secondary source" lists his birth name as Justin. Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The incorrect authors are identified in the February 21, 2019 Chicago Sun Times reference (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)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- Uh, no. His trial is currently underway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
He was convicted.174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2021 (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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. General Ization 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 16:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- He's not a felon until sentencing. DarrellWinkler (talk) 13:17, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. We do not make decisions about content in the Japanese edition of Misplaced Pages, nor do editors of that edition make decisions about content here. General Ization 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 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 23:33, 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)
- 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 16:26, 12 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)
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 05:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Missed a lot of pings. @Pennsylvania2, DarrellWinkler, and Hmdwgf: please see above. AlexEng 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 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 22:08, 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)
- 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 14:08, 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 22:00, 7 January 2022 (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 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)
- 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)
- I think the above editor is referring to the subject's acting career. AlexEng 00:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class African diaspora articles
- Low-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- C-Class biography (musicians) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (musicians) articles
- Musicians work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Low-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- C-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report