This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6144341/hughes-v-benjamin/
and the result? should be one thing where she's famous for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.253.17 ( talk) 18:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It's the *only* thing she is famous for.
I could be wrong, but i don't believe the lawsuit meets the standards of notability. Was it even covered by reliable secondary sources? 46.97.170.78 ( talk) 18:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own guidelines, this section of major dispute is not relevant to the public figure Akilah Hughes.
POLICIES IN QUESTION WITH RELEVANT SPECIFICS IN BOLD
Presumption in favor of privacy Avoid victimization When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems'—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.' This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. Public figures In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported. Using BLPs to continue disputes Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all. [a] Applicability of the policy BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. |
SUMMARY
Based on official Wikipedia editing policy, and the history of the talk page associated with Akilah Hughes it is therefore evident that several editors' bias has affected their ability to edit in an impartial manner. The comments and heavy-handed edits present a Conflict of Interest and damage the integrity of the entry.
See comment:
nothing about the lawsuit?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6144341/hughes-v-benjamin/
and the result? should be one thing where she's famous for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.253.17 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess no one's bothered to write about it yet. Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Kiwifruitbowl ( talk) 23:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Coming here after seeing the BLPN discussion. Personally this lawsuit is the only reason why I've heard of Hughes. I've seen in on various YouTube legal discussion channels but it's also made it to Bloomberg and Reason articles multiple times. [ [2]][ [3]][ [4]][ [5]]. Springee ( talk) 11:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Wheres the section saying this should not be included? There is plenty of such cases on other peoples pages. Is this a case of people with personal interest in this case trying to cover up her poor behaviour? It should be included in the article! Femanistfantasical ( talk) 08:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
No im crazy I thought the Discussion about copyright would be in the copyright section! Femanistfantasical ( talk) 10:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The lawsuit is absolutely noteworthy, despite what Kiwifruitbowl says, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is used to ensure that reporting of allegations is unbiased, as shown in the examples given, it says to omit words like "messy", citing WP:LABEL, however simply mentioning the lawsuit does not go against it in the slightest. Also, the use of court documents as a source isn't usually allowed purely so they can't be used to assert the result of a lawsuit as fact, for example using court documents as a primary source when stating that someone is innocent or guilty. because the use of court documents in this case is to assert that a lawsuit took place, WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply. not including the primary thing she is notable for is just absurd. it can be mentioned without talking about the verdict. this website is a place for bringing together information about things, omitting the primary reason someone is notable directly goes against the entire point of wikipedia. - callumpenguin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that the article is filled with poor quality sourcing for claims about a living person, like Forbes contributors and opinion pieces. As others have noted, it's possible that the lawsuit is the only reason Hughes is notable, which raises concerns of WP:BLP1E. I'm going to remove the poor sources along with any claims referenced to them and we can see what the article looks like. Woodroar ( talk) 21:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Hughes sued YouTuber Carl Benjamin for copyright infringement after he used a portion of her Hillary Clinton election party footage, admitting that she did so to bankrupt and silence him. The court dismissed her claim and ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of over $38,000.Woodroar ( talk) 20:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hughes sued YouTuber Carl Benjamin for copyright infringement after he used a portion of her Hillary Clinton election party footage, admitting that she did so to bankrupt and silence him. The court, Benjamin's video to be fair use criticism, dismissed her claim and ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of over $38,000.. Since the specific defense was fair use it makes sense to me to state as much. I think citing the later Bloomberg article is sufficient to support all claims made in those two sentences. While I defended that we could use Reason, in this case I don't think we need to so probably better to avoid it. Springee ( talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Every second the lawsuit isn't mentioned in the article is an affront to sanity! For BLPs perceived to be on the other side of the political spectrum highly contentious labels given in passing by politically biased yet reliable sources are crammed into opening sentences and there's debate here about including an obviously notable, well sourced legal mater here? Stop this farce immediately! Bahati ( talk) 01:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The court, ruling Benjamin's video to be fair use criticism, dismissed her claim and ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of over $38,000.With that one change, I think this is fine. Where in the article should it go? Out of the existing sections, I think it would fit the YouTube section best, since I believe it does involve a video she uploaded on her channel . Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 06:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just tried to insert material on the recent lawsuit on to this page. I supported my text with appropriate sources. However, my text has been censored on the basis that apparently I had to talk here first. Tellingly, the individual who censored offered no substantive criticism of it at all. Rather, his/her objection appeared to be a purely procedural one: that I hadn't 'cleared' it here first.
The text itself is as follows:
"In 2017, Hughes sued fellow Youtuber, Carl Benjamin for copyright infringment, in relation to her Youtube content. In 2020, the court dismissed her claim. Finding that that claim had been objectively unreasonable and had been brought for an improper purpose, the court ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of around $38,000. [1] [2]"
This is clearly factual, neutral and supported by reasonable sources. I struggle to see any reason why it shouldn't be included. So can it please be duly 'cleared' if that's what's duly required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shonwrath ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The words "objectively unreasonable" have been removed twice
[8]
[9] from the sentence "In August 2020, the judge, ruling Benjamin's video to be fair use criticism, dismissed her claim with prejudice
The reasons, for being 'objectively unreasonable' and ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of over $38,000."Without a detailed explanation that comes across as a subjective "soundbite" that isn't encyclopedic. Keeping this limited to the clear facts"
and "Objective unreasonableness is not the court's stated basis for dismissal; therefore, I have edited the paragraph to remove this incorrect information"
, conflict with the fact that this is exactly how the dismissal is described by a
Bloomberg article which took the language directly from the
judge's opinion. I support inclusion of this detail as a factual description of the court opinion. –
dlthewave
☎
02:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
What is the standard for citing sources about Akilah Hughes’ ongoing Twitter harassment campaign against a queer Indigenous paleontologist after he spoke up when her social media activity left several of his followers under the mistaken impression that he was the paleontologist she was accusing of sexual assault? This harassment campaign hasn’t been picked up yet by major media organizations, but a quick scroll through her Twitter feed will show that it is actively occurring now. Her own tweets, which fall within acceptable social media sources for a biography of a living person, were cited in a recent edit that got reverted. 69.126.152.175 ( talk) 02:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6144341/hughes-v-benjamin/
and the result? should be one thing where she's famous for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.253.17 ( talk) 18:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It's the *only* thing she is famous for.
I could be wrong, but i don't believe the lawsuit meets the standards of notability. Was it even covered by reliable secondary sources? 46.97.170.78 ( talk) 18:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own guidelines, this section of major dispute is not relevant to the public figure Akilah Hughes.
POLICIES IN QUESTION WITH RELEVANT SPECIFICS IN BOLD
Presumption in favor of privacy Avoid victimization When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems'—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.' This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. Public figures In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported. Using BLPs to continue disputes Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all. [a] Applicability of the policy BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. |
SUMMARY
Based on official Wikipedia editing policy, and the history of the talk page associated with Akilah Hughes it is therefore evident that several editors' bias has affected their ability to edit in an impartial manner. The comments and heavy-handed edits present a Conflict of Interest and damage the integrity of the entry.
See comment:
nothing about the lawsuit?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6144341/hughes-v-benjamin/
and the result? should be one thing where she's famous for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.253.17 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess no one's bothered to write about it yet. Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Kiwifruitbowl ( talk) 23:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Coming here after seeing the BLPN discussion. Personally this lawsuit is the only reason why I've heard of Hughes. I've seen in on various YouTube legal discussion channels but it's also made it to Bloomberg and Reason articles multiple times. [ [2]][ [3]][ [4]][ [5]]. Springee ( talk) 11:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Wheres the section saying this should not be included? There is plenty of such cases on other peoples pages. Is this a case of people with personal interest in this case trying to cover up her poor behaviour? It should be included in the article! Femanistfantasical ( talk) 08:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
No im crazy I thought the Discussion about copyright would be in the copyright section! Femanistfantasical ( talk) 10:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The lawsuit is absolutely noteworthy, despite what Kiwifruitbowl says, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is used to ensure that reporting of allegations is unbiased, as shown in the examples given, it says to omit words like "messy", citing WP:LABEL, however simply mentioning the lawsuit does not go against it in the slightest. Also, the use of court documents as a source isn't usually allowed purely so they can't be used to assert the result of a lawsuit as fact, for example using court documents as a primary source when stating that someone is innocent or guilty. because the use of court documents in this case is to assert that a lawsuit took place, WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply. not including the primary thing she is notable for is just absurd. it can be mentioned without talking about the verdict. this website is a place for bringing together information about things, omitting the primary reason someone is notable directly goes against the entire point of wikipedia. - callumpenguin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that the article is filled with poor quality sourcing for claims about a living person, like Forbes contributors and opinion pieces. As others have noted, it's possible that the lawsuit is the only reason Hughes is notable, which raises concerns of WP:BLP1E. I'm going to remove the poor sources along with any claims referenced to them and we can see what the article looks like. Woodroar ( talk) 21:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Hughes sued YouTuber Carl Benjamin for copyright infringement after he used a portion of her Hillary Clinton election party footage, admitting that she did so to bankrupt and silence him. The court dismissed her claim and ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of over $38,000.Woodroar ( talk) 20:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hughes sued YouTuber Carl Benjamin for copyright infringement after he used a portion of her Hillary Clinton election party footage, admitting that she did so to bankrupt and silence him. The court, Benjamin's video to be fair use criticism, dismissed her claim and ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of over $38,000.. Since the specific defense was fair use it makes sense to me to state as much. I think citing the later Bloomberg article is sufficient to support all claims made in those two sentences. While I defended that we could use Reason, in this case I don't think we need to so probably better to avoid it. Springee ( talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Every second the lawsuit isn't mentioned in the article is an affront to sanity! For BLPs perceived to be on the other side of the political spectrum highly contentious labels given in passing by politically biased yet reliable sources are crammed into opening sentences and there's debate here about including an obviously notable, well sourced legal mater here? Stop this farce immediately! Bahati ( talk) 01:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The court, ruling Benjamin's video to be fair use criticism, dismissed her claim and ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of over $38,000.With that one change, I think this is fine. Where in the article should it go? Out of the existing sections, I think it would fit the YouTube section best, since I believe it does involve a video she uploaded on her channel . Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 06:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just tried to insert material on the recent lawsuit on to this page. I supported my text with appropriate sources. However, my text has been censored on the basis that apparently I had to talk here first. Tellingly, the individual who censored offered no substantive criticism of it at all. Rather, his/her objection appeared to be a purely procedural one: that I hadn't 'cleared' it here first.
The text itself is as follows:
"In 2017, Hughes sued fellow Youtuber, Carl Benjamin for copyright infringment, in relation to her Youtube content. In 2020, the court dismissed her claim. Finding that that claim had been objectively unreasonable and had been brought for an improper purpose, the court ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of around $38,000. [1] [2]"
This is clearly factual, neutral and supported by reasonable sources. I struggle to see any reason why it shouldn't be included. So can it please be duly 'cleared' if that's what's duly required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shonwrath ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The words "objectively unreasonable" have been removed twice
[8]
[9] from the sentence "In August 2020, the judge, ruling Benjamin's video to be fair use criticism, dismissed her claim with prejudice
The reasons, for being 'objectively unreasonable' and ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of over $38,000."Without a detailed explanation that comes across as a subjective "soundbite" that isn't encyclopedic. Keeping this limited to the clear facts"
and "Objective unreasonableness is not the court's stated basis for dismissal; therefore, I have edited the paragraph to remove this incorrect information"
, conflict with the fact that this is exactly how the dismissal is described by a
Bloomberg article which took the language directly from the
judge's opinion. I support inclusion of this detail as a factual description of the court opinion. –
dlthewave
☎
02:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
What is the standard for citing sources about Akilah Hughes’ ongoing Twitter harassment campaign against a queer Indigenous paleontologist after he spoke up when her social media activity left several of his followers under the mistaken impression that he was the paleontologist she was accusing of sexual assault? This harassment campaign hasn’t been picked up yet by major media organizations, but a quick scroll through her Twitter feed will show that it is actively occurring now. Her own tweets, which fall within acceptable social media sources for a biography of a living person, were cited in a recent edit that got reverted. 69.126.152.175 ( talk) 02:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).