Talk:Jussie Smollett

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)

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)

Mugshot removed - unlicensed + other concerns

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, Insider (culture), and NY Daily News. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

Criminal parameters in infobox

NorthBySouthBaranof you removed the criminal parameters from the infobox here [1]. 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)

RfC on "convicted felon" in lead

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)
• 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., [2][3][4][5][6]). KyleJoan^talk 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)

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)