Talk:Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax

Requested move 1 June 2019

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 13:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett alleged false police report → Jussie Smollett alleged assault – The title is very long and uninformative for those seeing it for the first time. w umbolo  ^^^  09:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support More WP:CONCISE and better reflects what the article is actually about. The alleged assault was a notable event when it was first reported (and that's what the first 3 sections of the article are about) - the charges regarding filing a false report are a continuation/consequence of that event. I can think of a few other options - e.g. Jussie Smollett alleged hate crime, Jussie Smollett alleged assault controversy, Jussie Smollett alleged hate crime controversy, Jussie Smollett hate crime controversy - but I don't know if they're any clearer, so I'd support your proposed title as the most concise option. Colin M (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * oppose Sources have universally switched to describing this in the context of the alleged false report, nobody is treating it as a hate crime. We should follow the sources. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. He alleged an assault. That's why it made the news. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. The article seems to cover much more than just the police report or its validity. Certainly the illegality (alleged) centers around the police report, but there is more notable here than just that one act or actor (sorry). (e.g. the recusal fuss) Shenme (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories
I have removed the "racial hoax" category as per BLP and the prior discussion at the original article. When and if there is a court judgment of wrongdoing, a category can be applied - until then, we must be cautious not to prejudge the outcome of any legal proceeding. The case is not proven to be a hoax, and categories are not nuanced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. w umbolo   ^^^  12:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense, but why is "Jason Stokes BLM arson hoax" included in that category, when Stokes was acquitted? Elle Kpyros (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sequencing
I think the sequence of events is messed up here.
 * Smollett was treated at Northwestern Memorial Hospital; not seriously injured, he was released "in good condition" later that morning. The police were called after 2:30 am; when they arrived around 2:40 am, Smollett had a white rope around his neck.

Um, he had a white rope around his neck the entire time he was treated at the hospital, and no one told him it was kind of dangerous? Shenme (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe the order of the sentences should be switched. But I remember it being reported that when police arrived, he did still have the noose around his neck. Yes, re-reading it, I think a switch of order is the problem. "Later that morning" is almost guaranteed to be after "2:40 am." A little C&P should straighten it out. Jororo05 (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Lynching Bill
Here is the text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3178/text --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The term "MAGA hat" and article lead
This edit caught my eye. I edited the article further to link the term MAGA on its first use in the lead sentence rather than later in the article. However, it strikes me that the term MAGA hat is to too high-context for use without clarification -- particularly in light of MOS:FIRST, which says "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English." Also, it strikes me that the MAGA hat reference is likely somewhat ephemeral (think of "Tip and Ty").

I looked for a better wikilink than Make America Great Again to put this into context, but didn't quickly find anything I thought suitable. I thought of linking the term MAGA hat directly to the image (as I've just done there) and adding a footnoted clarification, but before I did that I came across this Huffpost article which says In the initial reports there was no mention of MAGA,' [and] 'When detectives [followed] up with him later in the day, he recalled the offenders making those comments and detectives completed a supplemental report.'} In light of that, it appears to me that the introduction of the term MAGA into the lead sentence of this article is hardly WP:NPOV.

Accordingly, I propose changing the article/s lead sentence to read something like, "On January 29, 2019, American actor Jussie Smollett told police that he was attacked in the early morning at the 300 block of East Lower North Water Street in Chicago's Streeterville by two men who physically attacked him after racial and homophobic slurs, poured an unknown chemical substance, possibly bleach, on him and tied a rope around his neck.", linking that huffpost article or some better source (e.g., the supporting source currently linked) in support, and not mentioning MAGA hats or political implications which have been suggested in connection with the attack until a section in the article body focusing on that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Having seen no objection to or discussion of the proposal. I have made this change to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Special prosecutor indicts Jussie Smollett on new charges
Smollett again faces criminal charges as a special prosecutor is accusing the former star of faking a 2019 hate crime attack. https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/2/11/21133743/jussie-smollett-charged-indictment-update

Semi-protection
I may be jumping the gun on this one, but should we consider making this article semi-protected? With his trial scheduled to be starting soon, it will likely attract a larger number of people to this article, some of whom may want to make possibly damaging edits, especially considering the high profile nature of the case when it first broke. MrJ567 (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All editors seem remarkably well-behaved so far. I think we can hold off on semi-protecting the article for now.--FeralOink (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Incident"
Why "incident"? Nothing happened. 46.166.46.198 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Alleged incident" might be a better fit. This article is being updated in the wake of the trial verdict, so older language may still be present in the article. clpo13(talk) 21:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. There were convincing arguments on both sides; however, the arguments for moving the article outweigh those for keeping the current title. The strongest points for moving the article were: 1. A staged assault did happen, but the reported hate crime did not. This means the current title could create technical confusion. 2. The majority of online media refers to the event as a hate crime (and hate crime hoax), and our own article refers specifically to it being a faux hate crime and a racial hoax in the lead. 3. A racial hate crime and a general assault are two distinct things, and common knowledge dictates that hate crimes carry harsher sentences and garner more notability. Hate crimes are also a very specific category of assault (not broader, as one editor suggested) meaning the proposed title is more descriptive (which almost all in the discussion agree is the goal of the naming). - Therefore, there is a rough consensus to move the article. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett assault hoax → Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax – "Hate crime" is more precise and speaks directly to what was important about the hoax, whereas "assault" has always been vague in that regard. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, more accurate description.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Hate crime" is not a crime, it is a sentencing modifier of an underlying crime, which in this case is "assault".  He is primarily charged with fabricating an assault, the root problem.  Not for additionally characterizing it as a hate crime.  Put another way, it is possible to suffer a real assault and fabricate the "hate crime" aspect of it.  What he is being charged with is fabricating the assault altogether. Walrasiad (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Hate Crime" is a crime under Illinois law. The grand jury indictment charged Smollett with felony disorderly conduct under 720 ILCS 5/26-1 (a)(4) in that he transmitted a false report to the effect that an offense was committed, specifically "That he was the victim of a hate crime, in violation of Chapter 720 Act 5 Section 12-7.1(a) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, reporting that... ...two unknown males, approached Jussie Smollett, called Jussie Smollett racial and homophobic slurs, and struck Jussie Smollett about the face, causing bodily harm... etc".  Perhaps you're not familiar with 720 ICLS 12-7.1 (a), which states that "A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation... he or she commits assault, battery, aggravated assault..." and so forth. Accordingly, it would be incorrect to say he was only being charged for fabricating an assault; he was also charged for fabricating a hate crime.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As the law makes clear, a hate crime does not exist by itself. It is an aggravation of an underlying crime.  You can be charged with a hate crime on top of a charge of assault.  But you cannot be charged with a hate crime without a charge of assault.  The assault is the root crime.  Walrasiad (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: If you look at the indictment, there are six counts for falsely reporting two "hate crime" (12-7.1(a)), three "battery" (Sec. 12-3(a)(1) and Sec. 12-3(a)(2)) and one "aggravated battery" (Sec. 12-3.05(f)(2)). Walrasiad (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing all six counts. So it would be correct to say that Smollett was not charged for fabricating an assault then?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, he is charged for "disorderly conduct" in reporting knowingly non-existent crimes. The six counts are for the crimes he reported.  In (Illinois) legalese, "assault" and "battery" are distinct (first is a threat to harm, second is actual harm). But in common usage, "assault" is taken to mean actual harm (e.g. to use Wikipedia itself: "Assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person", which would not be the formal definition in Illinois law courts).
 * I'd prefer the title of the article be as clear and concise as possible, that is, he fabricated an "assault" as it is commonly understood (which, in legal particulars, would include battery, aggravated battery and hate-aggravated assault), rather than focusing on some partial sub-part of the whole event (that someone called him some unsavory names). The latter makes it seem trivializing, or rather, that the name-calling alone was the scandalous fabricated bit, and not the entire event. Walrasiad (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the hate crime aspect is of far greater importance to the event than the assault and battery. The whole point of the staged incident was to gain sympathy as the victim of a hate crime.  If he'd told police that two nondescript men jumped him and beat him up while saying nothing (no MAGA hats, no racial or homophobic slurs, no ropes or nooses involved, etc), it would have served zero purpose.  Not many people would have cared and it would not have made the national news.  For Smollett's hoax to work, it had to be a hate crime in the larger sense as opposed to just an assault in the limited sense.  As you said, you can have an assault with no hate crime, but you can't have a hate crime without both the assault and the hate.  When you say that the hate crime aspect is a sub-part of the assault, IMHO I think you have the importance of that backwards.  The fake assault is a sub-part of the fake hate crime, and the fake hate crime is the larger story that garnered attention in society and the media, which in turn was what made this hoax notable for Wikipedia.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A celebrity fabricating any crime for attention and sympathy would make the national news and spark outrage. That he tacked on some extra glitter may have made it more outrageous.  But the root outrage is that he fabricated everything to begin with.
 * Consider this thought exercise: Suppose he was genuinely assaulted in, say, an altercation or just randomly by drunks, with no slurs. But then, to enhance sympathy, he then fabricates that slurs were proffered by his assailants. In this case, it would be a genuine "hate crime hoax" - he falsely turned a plain assault into a hate crime. That's what I'd understand by the proposed title.  That he exaggerated some aspects of a real assault, not that he staged the entire assault, from start to finish.  Walrasiad (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your concern at this point; you're saying that naming the article "Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax" might cause readers to mistakenly think the assault part could have been real, when in reality the assault part was just as fake as the hate crime part. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support my understanding is that there was a (framed) (but very real) assault. Red   Slash  02:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Hate crime" indicates that the crime's motive is hate (but say nothing about whether the crime is violent or not), whereas "assault" indicates that the crime is violent (but says nothing about the crime's motive). None of the two words is more accurate than the other, as they talk about different things: motive vs violentness. In my opinion, the fact that the crime alleged was violent is more important than that it was allegedly out of hate. This is subjective, of course. --Distelfinck (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: As always, it's worthwhile for all participants to consider WP:COMMONNAME as well. When I Google "jussie+smollett+ hate + crime ", Chrome reports ~14.6M results.  When I Google "jussie+smollett+ attack ", Chrome reports ~14.2M results.  When I Google "jussie+smollett+ assault ", Chrome reports ~7.7M results.  So I'm seeing roughly twice as many results for either "hate crime" or "attack" rather than "assault".  As results can differ from user to user, you may want to check your own search results for comparison.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * a) you have to put "hate crime" in quotes when googling it, otherwise Google also finds pages that contain the words "hate" and "crime" but not "hate crime". b) would be good to put "hoax" in quotes as well, so that we only find pages with an exact match, not pages only containing a synonym. c) The number of results reported by Google on the first page of the search results is often notoriously off by a lot. The accuracy can be improved by going to the last search results page. d) it would make sense to add intitle:smollett to the search query, this restricts the results to pages with his last name in the title, the reason behind this is that I hope it excludes pages that only mention Smollett in passing. Doing all this, and also additionally restricting the sarch to news, jussie intitle:smollett "hate crime" finds 118 news articles and jussie intitle:smollett "hoax" finds 127, so roughly the same. --Distelfinck (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you use google you have to use the whole phrase and search only for news article like this:
 * Jussie Smollett "assault hoax": 10 results
 * Jussie Smollett "attack hoax": 609 results
 * Jussie Smollett "hate crime hoax": 78,100 results
 * --TMCk (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's 168 results for the last search you mentioned, not "78,100". --Distelfinck (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I just clicked again the same and got "About 78,300 results (0.42 seconds) ".--TMCk (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The number at top of google searches contain a lot of "ghosthits" (imaginary, non-existent hits). You should never rely on them. You should tab your way through to the final search page to get the actual number. Doing so, your searches yield 10, 46 and 154 hits respectively. (Realistically, there's not even a tiny fraction of "78,3000" news articles about Jussie Smollett ever published in the history of the world, much less using that exact phrase.) Walrasiad (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "About 78,300 results" is an approximation (indicated by the "About " preface). As Walrasiad said, you have to click through to the very last search results page, which gives the exact number (indicated by the missing "About " preface). --Distelfinck (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok. I did that and the "attack" search isalso down to 50. Still proportional somehow right.--TMCk (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * To add some additional data, doing a general google search (not news) and tabbing to the end, the numbers are much closer (84 for "assault hoax", 120 for "attack hoax" and 97 for "hate crime hoax"), and all about the same amounts (15 pages-worth of results) after including "similar articles". Walrasiad (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a bad method. Avoid google web search results like the plague. I tried doing a search just now for . I got 16 pages of results, totalling 158 pages. I'm quite confident that there are a lot more than 158 pages on the internet containing that very vague combination of keywords. Google news hits OTOH have some probative value, but can still go wrong in a number of ways. Colin M (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. At this time I don't see a need to rename or move the article. I would say that describing the incident as an "assault" is also more descriptive than the broader term "hate crime." MrJ567 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I think it's important to mention that the current title "assault hoax" may not even be completely factually accurate as he may have been legally or technically assaulted, meaning the assault was not a hoax. However, the hate crime was. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. If this incident was just an assault hoax, it would not even be notable. Its notability derives from it being a hate crime hoax, and calling it an assault hoax would be euphemizing and sanitizing what happened in contravention of Wikipedia's WP:NOTCENSORED policy. —Lowellian (reply) 01:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support "hate crime hoax" appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. It's what we use in the lead sentence. It only makes since for the title to reflect coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Walrasiad. I'm not buying the appeals to WP:COMMONNAME without some sound evidence: this surely looks like a typical descriptive title, which we should make descriptive and accurate enough. No such user (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment These are some sources that refer to this as either the exact phrasing "hate crime hoax" or something similar such as fake hate crime. They all use "hate crime" in describing this situation.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

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.

Any good reason the article never mentions...
...that the alleged white attackers are actually black? I'm stunned.--TMCk (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * dude if you think the article needs help, stop complaining and freaking WP:DOIT Red   Slash  17:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you explain your revert here to clarify your rationale? You edit summary said "Smollett didn't describe them as black."  The text doesn't say "he described them as black men"; the text says "he described them as white men".  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your text says Smollett lied to police by telling them he been assaulted [...] by two black men that Smollett described as white males". So it says that Smollett told police that he had been assaulted by two black men. You got the wording wrong. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * He deceived the police by telling them that he had been assaulted by two black men that Smollett (falsely) described as white males, meaning that the lie was that he said that they were white when they were actually black. Do you understand the context now?  If you think that's confusing, what kind of alternative way would you suggest phrasing it?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They are black, but Smollett didn't tell the police that they are black. So he didn't tell the police that he had been assaulted by two black men (quote from you). Ihe wording I'd suggest and just added to the article is "He described one of them as white, while in reality, both are black." --Distelfinck (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've re-written it to make clear what was planned, what was fake, and what was real with regard to the attack. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Good catch on the point that the red hat didn't say "MAGA" on it. With regard to your change here, can you expand on why you regard the payment issue as being unsourced? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The source only says that the Osundairo brothers say that Smollett paid them for the staged attack. The brothers are not a reliable source for Wikipedia (of course we can still report what they said, just not claim that it's factual). --Distelfinck (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of copyright violation
The article currently has a copyright warning at the beginning. I think this is the diff in question.

Clearly, someone copied and pasted content from an article without using quotes, without citing a source, and without saying that the content was from somewhere else. This is clearly a violation of wikipedia policy.

I think we call all oppose this content being included in the article in the form that it was added.

The question then becomes whether or not the content can be cited in a manner which agrees with wikipedia policies, including citations, links, and quotation marks. I take no side on whether or not to include that content, but I did want to start this discussion because the article does have that tag at the beginning.

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any lines from the stand-up routine of a comedian belongs in the article, at all, and not for copyright issues, but because it does nothing to further the understanding of the topic. A citation to a reliable source saying he's been the subject of jokes by comedians would be enough. Le Marteau (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Worked as a bouncer?
"Osundairo ... present[ed] evidence that he gets paid to be involved in homosexual activities, such as being employed at a bar as a bouncer..."

This is a non-sequitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.168.170 (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

WSJ quote
See my edit and the revert.

My edit summary had a typo (we are editorializing, not the WSJ). @AzureCitizen, WP:HEADLINEs are not a reliable source. If you read the article, you'll see that the police never claimed that; the two brothers did; their statement to the police is undue, hence my removal. The statement by the police was "to promote his career", which is already quoted in the next section (and properly attributed). DFlhb (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sheila O'Brien
This whole case may well have died in back in June 2019, if it weren't for her. I feel this warrants mention of her in the article. 2A00:7C40:C140:4E:347E:5D96:80F3:780C (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide some reliable sources we can use for this purpose. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)