Talk:Jussie Smollett

Trump statement

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

"I can tell you that it's horrible. It doesn't get worse."

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

"That I can tell you is horrible. It doesn't get worse."

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

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

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

I'm not going to remove the Trump comment at this time, but I invite other editors to let us know whether they agree with me that it should be removed as mostly irrelevant and adding essentially nothing of value to the article. General Ization ^Talk 20:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hospitalization?

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

hot sauce bottle

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

Dave Chappelle

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

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

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

Looks like we're there. If the idiot had been from Chicago, he'd have known this wasn't going to work. Made no sense in the Chicago of 2019, let alone Streeterville. 98.4.103.187 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What amounts to a 'public figure'? Lots of people have publicly stated as much, even before Chapelle. And even if he was the first, why should it be pointed out? This feels very bizarre. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To me a public figure is anyone notable enough to have a Wiki bio article. Do you have any reliable sources that quote other public figures denouncing the charade as a hoax? I don't think any notable people did so prior to 14 Feb. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 17:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin and Steven Crowder [1]. Terrence K. Williams. But you are missing my point. I don't think it should be included, regardless who was first. --SVTCobra (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think reactions from media and public figures are very relevant to this article, including reactions from right-wing pundits, Democrat senators, POC comedians and rappers such as Chappelle & Cardi B, et al. The public discourse about the incident is absolutely encyclopedic information in this case. Of course we don't want this section to become bloated and completely take over the article, so the reactions of lesser-known persons will have to wait until the incident has its own article. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 04:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Branch off to separate article?

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

I think this could be warranted. This is evolving into something more than just an incident with Smollett. Its becoming a nation wide debate on how prevalent "hate crimes" are in America, and on how seriously alleged victims are taken. Every day this story grows, and beginning to dominate this page. 2601:982:4200:A6C:CD0D:6845:8D55:528D (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

While this incident may be worthy of a standalone article, and is certainly part of a conversation on hate crimes, an article about this incident would not be the proper place to put all the content regarding the status of hate crimes in America. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes for a separate article, but at the same time leave this BLP article detailed regarding the hoax incident. #JusticeforJussie #MAGA ~ Bought the farm (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Nice start!! I suspect the title could be "The staged hoax attack of Jussie Smollett - which further enflamed racist claims against MAGA hat donners" ~ Bought the farm (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Should this turns out to be a staged hoax, it's weirdly very reminiscent of Vince Bugliosi's theory about Charles Manson's "Family" attempting to start a race war in 1969. Both things attempting to enflame racism in America. If a hoax... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I trimmed almost 1/2 of it already. It seems like a reasonable current summary of the state of things, but it was obviously going to grow quickly with the change in direction of the event. Now all of that growth can go into the new article, and this article doesn't need to track the evolution of the event, just the current status. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• No--there is no good reason for this whatsoever. Even the title is problematic. I have redirected. Feel free to put back whatever content you wish--with careful attention to WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:UNDUE. We are not cable news or a tabloid. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Copy and pasting text back is tiresome. Would rather revert to the version before the redirect, and then tag problematic sections and from there remove/fix things --Distelfinck (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to wait until after the outcome of the court case to branch off to a separate article. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 04:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

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

• Hmm why? It's not wrong. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Depends what the original editor is attempting to say. If we keep the commas in, the sentence means that: Smollett orchestrated the attack ... and, by the way, "staged" is another word that also means "orchestrated". The two words mean the same thing. If we take the commas out, the sentence means that: Smollett either orchestrated the attack ... or he staged it ... the two words mean (subtly) different things. That is my reading. So, it depends on what was being said ... or was attempted at being said. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If we keep the commas in, the sentence means that: Smollett orchestrated (or, in other words, he staged) the attack. If we take the commas out, the sentence means that: Smollett either orchestrated the attack ... or he staged it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

crisis manager

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

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

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

Category:Racial hoaxes

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

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

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

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

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

Add now. This is not only a racial hoax but a sexual orientation hoax as well. Disgusting. 66.141.235.58 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

2007 misdemeanor case

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

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

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

Survey

• Split. This event certainly passes WP:GNG on its own, and coverage is going to grow to overwhelm this BLP rapidly (although it may shortly become the most important event in this guys life). ResultingConstant (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. This is a great example of WP:PAGEDECIDE. There is little to no practical benefit to spinning off a separate event article at this time. Everyone interested in the event will be searching for Jussie Smollett. If the event starts to overwhelm Smollett's biography then the issue can be reexamined later. But there are lots of biographies just like this one, that read perfectly well with some notable scandal or controversy placed in a section. R2 (bleep) 18:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Wait to split. The current section is not completely overwhelming the rest of the article. Let's wait until the outcome of the court case is announced. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Split. It has already overwhelmed the biography. This article currently has 700 words about the incident and the rest of the article has 600 words (not counting the lead, tables and notes). The lead section currently contains one paragraph about this; in my opinion, it should remain one paragraph regardless of the rest of the lead. It can also be mentioned in the first lead paragraph if it becomes appropriate. With regards to the section in this article, I believe that two semi-lengthy paragraphs are enough (one for initial reporting and reactions, the other for subsequent events). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 19:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Then it should be edited down to a paragraph. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Split. The alleged attack / hoax needs to have its own separate article. If the section remains here, Smollett's entire biography, in effect, will be the section about the hoax. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Split. This is an international news story that has grown well beyond this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• No to split. He is not well known enough for this. The vast majority of the public never heard of him. There is no reason it cannot fit in his biography. And while it's attracted attention, it's not anywhere near the level that warrants its own article. Everything celebrities do attract attention - Charlie Sheen's meltdown didn't need its own article and it had 10,000 times the media attention - it was all anybody on the planet talked about. Now it's barely a blip in his biography and has been edited down to about four sentences. The attention now doesn't necessarily mean there will be a lasting impact on anyone but him and his career. He will take a plea deal and his career will be over. So the lasting impact just isn't there unless something else happens, such as an actual trial. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• No He's nowhere near famous enough to warrant a separate page on this hoax and my perception is that the media and public are alreayd moving on. This is not like the Tawana Brawley trial from the late 80's that had the nation's full attetnion. EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• No or at least not yet. Wikipedians love to cram in every speck of new news the moment it breaks online, resulting in "articles" that resemble news reports, not sober encyclopedias. We can write succinctly and proportionately without quoting every person who tweets, rehashing every police statement, and giving equal time to every news outlet from ABC to Yahoo!. We summarize and edit, and editing implies a filter. Believe it or not, Wikipedia isn't a place for everything, even if it's true. An article can be made NPOV by taking a step back from the hourly fire hose of breaking news hitting our eyeballs, and summarizing (not regurgitating) the most salient issues in proportion to their prominence and relevance. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wait to split per User:Heroeswithmetaphors and User:Animalparty. Splitting does not seem necessary at this point and it can occur after the incident settle a bit if it becomes necessary. DynaGirl (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal charges and arrest

February 21, 2019

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

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

Sources

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

---