Jump to content

Talk:Jussie Smollett

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slp1 (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 15 April 2019 (→‎Government name: answers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findnote


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, do. XavierItzm (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM please. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Then it should be edited down to a paragraph. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Split. This is an international news story that has grown well beyond this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. Let's have a sourced section. XavierItzm (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made this edit. I hope it conforms to the above ideas. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's well-sourced and relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Split. There is more than enough content for its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Split (Summoned by bot) Sustained national news coverage amply justifies a a split. Coretheapple (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Split - It's snowing. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That would probably be a good way to handle it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jussie_Smollett&oldid=892646876"