Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 15 March 2022

BIRTH NAME – PLEASE READThe use of primary sources in general, and the California Birth Index and FamilySearch in particular, to source claims that the given name of this subject at birth was anything other than their current name is precluded by the Biographies of living persons policy (BLP), specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY. Claims thus sourced will be reverted. Under the BLP policy, only reliable secondary sources may be used to establish the birth name of a living (or recently deceased) person.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: December 5 to 11, 2021

Positive framing

@EvergreenFir: @Tamravidhir: @S0091: @Horse Eye Jack: we should version-delete the section about his false flag and frame it like we did in Erica Thomas' article, where we only mention that no arrests have been made yet. Thanks in advance, --178.113.195.69 (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@178.113.195.69: I do not understand with regards to what is this. I have never edited this article before and I have made only one edit so far to the Erica Thomas article and have neither been involved in any consensus with regards to these articles. Please state what you wish to be changed in "please change X to Y" format and cite a reliable source. --Tamravidhir (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh I get it, you're pretending we’re all members of some sort of conspiracy, wink wink. I rate this troll: 5/10 on planning, 2/10 on effort, and 1/10 on execution. At least use the account a bit first next time. And now to sign off as all libs do when owned: Praise Obama! Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the claims of "version-delete" aren't even accurate. Only one revision seems to have been deleted in the Erica Thomas article and it was deleted for copyright violation reasons , as would any content violating copyright positive, negative or neutral, on any page, where it is identified. All other content remains in the edit history e.g. . Even which hopefully is a non copyvio version of the removed content. While there is sometimes justification for WP:revision deletion of BLP violating content, this doesn't seem to have happened here yet. IP, if you are User:Ocumicho Diablos and the one who added the WP:copyvio content, then your only solution to avoid revdeletion, again no matter the tone of the copyvio content, is to stop violating copyright in your edits. Anything else and the content is liable to be revdeleted (or deleted outright if the entirety of the article is affected and there's no good revision to keep)when identified and you will be blocked if it continues. Whatever else, we take copyright serious here on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

More sources citing his name as ‘Justin’

refers to Smollett as "Justin." Foreign publications also refer to him as "Justin." Is SI a decent enough source? Also Elle which is likely also to be RS. [https://www.programme-tv.net/news/series-tv/224892-jussie-smollett-agresse-la-star-dempire-sort-enfin-du-silence/ ], The Panther, etc.

How should we reconcile this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: You are obsessed with this, aren't you? I suggest adding a single sentence somewhere in the article body mentioning that several sources list his birth name as "Justin", but that none of the official sources use that name anywhere. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m determined to get it right as we can, shouldn’t we all be “obsessed” in the same way? I got curious when numerous people kept adding ‘Justin’ so decided to see what was going on.

You state “none of the official sources use that name anywhere.“ What are official sources and how do we know? Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Official sources would be his official website, information from publicity agents, and that kind of thing. None of them, as far as I can tell, use "Justin" anywhere. Regarding the four bare URL references you added, please use {{cite web}} to make the URLs more than just bare. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I was having problems getting the Visual Editor to work, should be fine now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

IMDB, a "reliable secondary source" lists his birth name as Justin. Misplaced Pages is becoming less and less reliable every day because of their slavish adherence to idiotic rules. Actors are notorious for spreading false information about birth dates and names, yet the advice above is to get that information from their own websites because it is "reliable"? Come on.174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Smollett’s character was removed from the final two episodes of season five (of empire).

Added to career section.

Smollett’s character was removed from the final two episodes of season five because of the assault controversy.

From existing: https://apnews.com/b3276d9075aa437c859ed40ed2ec0661 source and https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jussie-smolletts-empire-role-cut-from-seasons-final-episode-creators-say which is also in the Jussie_Smollett_alleged_assault article. Moscowdreams (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

new charges against Smollett do not violate his right against double jeopardy

He is fighting new charges that he filed a fake claim and tried to falsely involve the MAGA movement. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/12/jussie-smollett-judge-tosses-out-actors-double-jeopardy-claim/3179119001/

Wouldn't he have to go to trial the first time for it to be double jeopardy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.40.86 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The original charges can be re-filed at any time, since he's never faced a jury for them. Legally speaking, jeopardy hasn't yet occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:7D:5515:209A:9495:6312 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing "years active" to "1991-present." If you have evidence that he has done something in the industry since January, 2019, please present this. Otherwise, 2019 was the end of his time active in industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robkeenan (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No. You need evidence he has retired to make that assertion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

He's a known fraudster, he's unemployable, and it's obvious that he'll never get another job in front of a camera. Whether he admits it or not is irrelevant. His acting career is over.2601:647:4F00:7D:5515:209A:9495:6312 (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a pretty unsupportable assumption. Charlie Sheen assaulted his wife, went right back to acting. Mike Tyson literally raped someone and went back in the ring, and is now the "star" of Shark Week. So your assumption above doesn't seem to have grounding. There are any number of people who committed wrongdoing and continued their performing careers. Your bald declaration to the contrary is meaningless here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The incorrect authors are identified in the February 21, 2019 Chicago Sun Times reference (in the 2nd paragraph of Jussie_Smollett#2019_alleged_hate_crime_hoax). In the citation, change this code:

|first1=Sam |last2=Alice |first2=Yin

to this code:

|last1=Charles |first1=Sam |last2=Grimm |first2=Andy

108.56.139.120 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The “allegedly” in the summary where it says he “allegedly” staged a fake hate crime hoax, is verifiably false, and I demand that it be removed, to state unambiguously that Jussie Smollett faked a hate crime hoax.

“Allegedly” means “used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof.” However, there is ample evidence that Jussie Smollett faked his hate crime, so much evidence that he was indicted not once but twice for the crime.

Don’t be a liar. 206.251.42.28 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Indicted, but not convicted. A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law. "Alleged" is appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting criminal trial. See WP:BLPCRIME and MOS:ALLEGED. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You "demand", IP Editor? Well, not because you demanded it, but because it is now true. He was convicted.----FeralOink (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Alleged?

We was convicted. Editor8778 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Please cite the source which says he was convicted of a crime or found liable in a civil action. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Not yet but its all but guaranteed given the evidence against him. DarrellWinkler (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

He was convicted.--FeralOink (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Uh, no. His trial is currently underway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I am wrong. You are correct. I jumped the gun.--FeralOink (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

He was convicted.174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Convicted felon

He is now unfortunately under US federal law a convicted felon thanks to his conviction on 5 felonies.--Hmdwgf (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that is already very clearly discussed in the article. Unless a crime is the primary reason for a subject's notability, we do not note their status as a felon or any other class of criminal in the first sentence of the lead, the purpose of which is to establish the basis of the subject's notability. General Ization 02:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with General Ization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, please note that "US federal law" has nothing to do with this matter. The charges of which Smollett was convicted are Illinois state, not federal, charges. General Ization 02:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I never heard of this guy until the incident, which resulted in him being a convicted felon. If you think of Smollet the incident, not his acting career, is what he is best known for. He may be a notable actor, but this snafu is why he is best known. just like Harvey Weinstein is known for being a producer, but mostly known for abusing women. The first sentence on Weinstein's page describes him as a "convicted felon." Should be the same with Smollett. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you never heard of him prior to the incident does not mean the incident is why he is notable. Many people have been convicted of multiple felonies, but they do not qualify for a Misplaced Pages article as a result. The content of Weinstein's page does not dictate how this page is managed, or the policies that are generally applied on Misplaced Pages. General Ization 03:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

He's not a felon until sentencing. DarrellWinkler (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@DarrellWinkler: Actually, no. He has been convicted of felony charges. Sentencing determines what the penalty will be, not the charges of which he has been convicted. General Ization 16:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that outside of the United States that he is primarily known for being a convicted felon. Living in Japan we are only aware of him because he is on trial. 27.85.204.194 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You may argue that, but the achievement of notability is not based on when you or any other Misplaced Pages editor became aware of the subject. It is based on coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and this subject has received notable coverage since at least 2011, long before the current incident. Also, this is the English Misplaced Pages. We do not make decisions about content in the Japanese edition of Misplaced Pages, nor do editors of that edition make decisions about content here. General Ization 01:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The subject may be notable for multiple reasons, but is there a standard for sorting the reasons within the article? Because I would argue that the biggest reason for notability by far, in the English speaking world or otherwise, is the hoax. And therefore it should be front and center. As in opening with: "Jussie Smollett is an American felon, convicted of perpetrating a politically and racially motivated hoax..." Bahati (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears, then, that you are lacking the neutral point-of-view necessary to fairly edit this article. To answer your question, see the second paragraph of this section. Smollett is notable as an actor, and that is why he has had an article in the encyclopedia since 2007. We have dedicated the entire second paragraph of the lead and a significant portion of the article to his crime and legal status, and that should be sufficient for any reader to be introduced to the subject (versus the crime, which has its own article). If not for you, please check your biases. General Ization 16:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying he's more notable for the hoax than anything else. I suggest entering his name into a search engine for evidence. Can you support an argument that he's more notable for other reasons? Bahati (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I've explained my position clearly above. General Ization 23:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hey, @NorthBySouthBaranof, General Ization, and Bahati: can we please wrap this up? Is there consensus to add the "convicted felon" epithet or not? Do we need an RfC or a formal closure request to end the discussion? I feel uneasy reverting lead edits based on this "ongoing" discussion every time the article gets to the top of my watchlist, and I would prefer to see some kind of finality to this one way or the other. AlexEng 05:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Missed a lot of pings. @Pennsylvania2, DarrellWinkler, and Hmdwgf: please see above. AlexEng 05:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I say yes.--Hmdwgf (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely not consensus to do so. Any such proposal will need a formal RFC, and will need to demonstrate clear reasons why we would ignore the precedents set at numerous other articles, such as Dinesh D'Souza, Martha Stewart, etc. As for drive-by vandalism, the solution is a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, we don't operate based on precedent, but it would be good to have a clear consensus in either direction. Then there should be a <!-- hidden text --> in the lead indicating that consensus so that people stop changing it. It's not clear that this is vandalism. AlexEng 14:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

When the edit is repeatedly made by a previously-blocked edit-warrior who has clearly expressed zero interest in engaging in talk page discussion and is simply attempting to ram through their edit by force of arms, I feel confident that "vandalism" is an accurate description. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: That particular editor has now been blocked indef from editing this article, so hopefully that will relieve the OP of the need to revert their persistent and undiscussed edits here. General Ization 22:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

My position is as I expressed it above, and is a "no" to adding "convicted felon" (or anything similar) to the first sentence of the lead, for the reasons I've explained. His present legal status is already discussed in the lead (in the second paragraph, where it belongs) and has its own article. General Ization 22:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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 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 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 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 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)

Verb tense updates.

Is needs changed to was in many places. 107.9.181.34 (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Uh, no. He's not dead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the above editor is referring to the subject's acting career. AlexEng 00:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would anyone think that his acting career is over? Mike Tyson raped a woman and remains a sought-after entertainment and sports personality. Charlie Sheen's legal troubles are legendary. We're not here to pass judgment on someone's life and works, and they don't stop being an actor just because they also happen to have committed a really dumb crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Some WP:RS say that his acting career is over, but I don't believe that to be true either. I am not a Jussie fan, but I *DO* know that NorthBySouthBaranof is correct about notoriety sometimes having no effect, or even a positive one, when it comes to actors and musical artists. I am not going to prognosticate about Jussie's future acting prospects in the article. I think that verb tense updates are probably needed in the more narrow context of the trial. I'll take a look now to see.--FeralOink (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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 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.

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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, please ask at WP:IMAGEHELP. This discussion pertains to this specific image at this specific article. General Ization 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 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)

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 22:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• C-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report