Talk:Akilah Hughes

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)

It's the *only* thing she is famous for.

Is the lawsuit noteworthy?

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)

Copyright Lawsuit is Irrelevant per Wikipedia Standards

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

Copied sections of WP:BLP, including WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLPCOI, and WP:BLPTALK

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 See also: Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual 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. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. 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. 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)

I've collapsed the copied and pasted sections from WP:BLP above, complete with code that breaks the page, and also make it obvious that the quoted Talk page comments are indeed comments.

I don't find any of the above arguments convincing, personally. However, WP:BLPPRIMARY is quite clear that we can't use court documents to support claims about living persons. If this content has been covered in a reliable, third-party source suitable for claims about living persons, we can certainly discuss if and how to add it back. Woodroar (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you know what "irrelevant" means, because you keep saying information about a lawsuit that person launched is irrelevant in an article about that person. If you want to argue that it's false, or misrepresented, or giving that one event undue weight, or contains too much detail, or any of a number of things, and you're specific about these things, then fine. But stop saying it's irrelevant, because it manifestly is not. The comparison with mention of the divorce of a person whose marriage isn't related to the reason for their notability isn't equivalent, because this lawsuit was over her music, which is the core of her notability. Largoplazo (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Neutral" doesn't mean "only write about the good stuff". It means write neutrally, both when writing about the good stuff (see WP:PEACOCK and WP:PUFFERY and WP:NOTFANSITE) as well as the bad stuff.

Re denial: Has Hughes denied filing or losing the lawsuit? I'm trying to figure out why you pasted here some of the guidelines that you did.

Re your characterization of the contributors who added the material in question: You have given zero evidence that 'several editors' bias has affected their ability to edit in an impartial manner"' "I do not like or agree with what these people are writing" does not equal "These people are wrong and have such-and-such motives for writing it" and certainly not "These people have a conflict of interest". If the tone of their contributions is biased, then that needs to be cleaned up; it isn't, by itself, cause to delete the factual matter. Unless you identify specific editors and things they have said that are tantamount to having such motives or demonstrate a conflict of interest, your insistence that they have those motives or a conflict of interest is an attack in violation of the requirement to assume good faith.

If you think the material is inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, then be specific about which part of it is inconsistent which specific provision (don't just dump four entire sections of guidelines here), and stick to an objective evaluation instead of ad hominem attacks. Otherwise, even if you're right, you may well not be heard. Largoplazo (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think there has been some coverage of the event in secondary reliable sources, for example here [1], but I'm not finding a lot from a quick search. I don't think there's anything that would make this inherently relevant or not. Filing frivolous lawsuits can certainly be relevant to a person's notability, for example Mark Z. Jacobson, a scientist whose frivolous defamation suit received a lot of publicity. This copyright suit was something of a high-profile case because it was one celebrity suing another, and also because of the judge's reasoning dismissing her suit and levying fees against her—it's not every day a judge explicitly rules that one of the parties is filing frivolous suits in abuse of legal process. Anyways, the issue of "relevance" should be decided by coverage in reliable sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:38, 14 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)

Femanistfantasical, discussion further on down the page reached a consensus on wording and mention of the lawsuit was then added to the article. Did you read it? Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 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)

Lawsuit and surrounding sources

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)

@Callumpenguin: There's an obvious contradiction here. If the primary thing the subject is notable for is the lawsuit, then you should not need to use court documents to establish it took place. It sounds like you don't need the court documents anyway, but if you did, that's good evidence either that the subject is not notable, or it's not the primary thing they are notable for. That's a key part of BLPPRIMARY, if these details matter then you should not need to dig through primary sources to find them. Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, since then, i have found two reliable secondary sources about the lawsuit, both of which are in my response to "Sourcing and notability" here on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callumpenguin (talk • contribs) 07:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability

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)

Alright, I've pruned quite a bit from the article and I would definitely lean towards Hughes being notable outside the lawsuit. There are a couple awards, plus writing, hosting, and moderating several events.

As far as I'm concerned, the question now is: do we have enough sourcing to mention the lawsuit? There are clearly some sources, but I'm not sure if they're strong enough to support negative or controversial claims about a living person. Personally, I'm on the fence. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We absolutely have enough sourcing to at least mention the lawsuit, and possibly the outcome, as secondary sources are usually preferred, there is a Bloomberg law article about the lawsuit, along with a similar "reason" article, both of which can be used to source a majority of claims about the lawsuit.

Overall, there is definitely enough appropriate sourcing to talk about it, probably as a part of "Career" -  callumpenguin (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Read WP:BLP and WP:V. The threshold for source reliability is much higher for content about living persons, especially when it's controversial or negative. Looking at the entry for Bloomberg at WP:RSP, there's no indication that it's suitable for BLP claims as other entries mention. Even reading through the linked discussions, nobody's considered Bloomberg from a BLP perspective. And now that I've looked at the 2 Reason articles linked on this Talk page, they're not usable here. The Volokh Conspiracy blog has editorial independence at Reason, and multiple discussions at RSN and BLPN have found them to be effectively self-published and inappropriate for BLP claims per WP:BLPSPS. I don't believe the threshold for source reliability or even WP:DUE has been met. Woodroar (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious include to me. This isn't an example of controversial, negative claims/labels in a BLP. This isn't a lawsuit against Hughes that makes allegations. Hughes originated the lawsuit and lost. The suit was covered in both an initial and follow up article by two RSs. Neither the Bloomberg nor Reason articles were options. Springee (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation of RSN consensus is that Bloomberg News is considered reliable for factual claims. I don't know if it's been asked about in specific regard for BLPs, but in discussions like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Bloomberg and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226#On_Bloomberg the clear consensus is that Bloomberg News is as reliable as any other major news organization, so it should be considered reliable for factual claims about living persons. When it comes to Reason, the Volokh Conspiracy is absolutely not reliable for claims about living people. It's hosted at Reason, but they don't exercise any kind of editorial control, so this is essentially a self-published group blog. As far as WP:DUE goes, I think this probably meets the threshold. This is not a person who receives a lot of news coverage, so the Bloomberg News articles make up a significant portion of the coverage of her in reliable sources. Two news articles ([6], [7]) about this lawsuit from months apart are the kind of sustained coverage that indicates this controversy is a noteworthy part of the subject's life. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Side note: I don't think this rises to the level of something that should be covered in the lead. It's certainly not a major part of the subject's career and doesn't have that level of coverage. This probably just warrants a sentence or two in the body of the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I think in this case the Volokh Conspiracy/Reason article should be fine. If this were a case where Volokh was saying "Hughes is a reverse racist" or applying some sort of label then I would agree, it's not OK. However, in this case they are basically announcing what the court said. The only thing Volokh has done is say, this is a notable topic by pointing readers to what the court ruled. I mean the article is almost 100%, "here is a long quote from the court". If Volokh were offering an opinion regarding the quality of the legal arguments made I would still be OK including since Eugene Volokh is a notable, subject mater expert on the law. Springee (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to mention this—something that I concede is inevitable at this point—then do we need to include Reason at all? After all, we've got 2 articles from Bloomberg Law which appear to be reliable per discussions above.

As for the content, any thoughts on how to condense this into a couple of sentences? Woodroar (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that User:Shonwrath is on the right track with this wording, but we could condense it a bit. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something like this? 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)

I think that is good though I would add a slight modification, 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)

There's no deadline here, and the most important part of a BLP is getting it right. But I think we're almost there. If you have an opinion on the proposed text immediately above your message, please let us know. Personally, I think Springee's text is fine. Thoughts from anyone else? Woodroar (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

One slight change, I think there's a missing word in Springee's suggested text. That last sentence should be 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)

Lawsuit

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."

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

We're talking about how to include this a section up. Woodroar (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Objectively unreasonable"

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 for being 'objectively unreasonable' and ordered Hughes to pay Benjamin's legal costs of over $38,000. The reasons, "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)

The judge's opinion helps explain why I oppose this "soundbite" type quote vs using some type of summary or simply leaving this detail out. If one isn't familiar with the law, "objectively unreasonable" makes it sound like the courts have found that Hughes wasn't some sort of scientifically quantifiably, above and beyond reasonable. Reading the ruling makes it clear this is actually a specific legal term when used in context but we have stripped that away and thus it can come across as more an attempt to insult Hughes, make the reader emotionally dislike her vs just explain the ruling. A similar example would is how people often view a legal finding of liability to suggest a moral failing on the part a company in an injury case. A court might find that a new drug caused injury in some users but the liability finding is often just a way for the courts to put some of the societal costs of an occasional bad outcome on those who profit from the successes of the same drug. It's not a moral judgement even though it is often seen as one. For the court to order Hughes to pay the other side's legal costs they have to have some standard to decide if her case was a legally reasonable case or not. They used an objective standard and found that her case failed that standard. We could say something like, "the court found that Hughes's case didn't meet objective standards for a reasonable copyright claim and thus ordered Hughes to pay the opposing side's legal fees". That avoids the term that could imply something about Hughes herself and still gets the basic information across. To be honest, that information is also carried by the fact that the judge ordered her to pay the other side's costs which is all we need to say. Springee (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, but this isn't one of those got-'em-on-a-technicality, liability-with-no-wrongdoing cases. The judge stated that the frivolous suit was brought for an "improper purpose", an attempt by Hughes to “use copyright laws to silence her political opponents and critics” and “intended to sensationalize the litigation to elevate her own public profile and achieve a secondary financial gain.” Wouldn't you agree that "objectively unreasonable" is one of the milder terms we could use to summarize the opinion? –dlthewave ☎ 12:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer to simply not put that much information in the article. It starts to put undue weight on this single event based on total length of the article vs length of this content (disclaimer, I only know of Hughes via watching some legal analyses of her copyright case). If it is important/DUE to include more detail then I think we need to summarize with impartial language, "The Judge ruled that the use was protected by fair use and the copyright claim was used to silence a critic. The judge ruled against Hughes and ordered her to pay the opposing party's legal fees." I don't like that I used "The judge" twice but I think it summarizes the case without unnecessary quoting and with terms that are as impartial as possible. Another suggestion would to simply say the court found that her case didn't meet the legal standard for a reasonable copyright claim. It gets rid of the quote, is basically no longer and is easier for people who aren't familiar with the ruling to understand. Springee (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason I removed "objectively unreasonable" from the article is because it is not the court's stated basis for granting Benjamin's motion for dismissal--which occurred in a 10-page opinion and order on February 3, 2020--nor is that what Bloomberg says. Objective unreasonableness was the partial basis for granting the motion to have Hughes pay Benjamin's attorney fees and costs--which occurred in a 14-page opinion and order on August 5, 2020 (linked by dlthewave above). These are two separate orders that were made by the court for two separate stated opinions. I agree with Springee that actually taking the space to accurately enumerate the court's order granting dismissal in this article would indeed place an undue amount of weight onto this one event in Hughes' life, which is why it should suffice to simply relay the fact that the court dismissed the case with prejudice and rendered a decision ordering Hughes to pay Benjamin's attorney fees and costs, with a link to any reliable third-party source that provides factual information about the case. Court orders are complicated legal documents that are not easily translated into short, biographically apt snippets. While we are here, I will also say I removed "of over $38,000" from the sentence, as well, because it is a vague expression of fact, and accuracy is, of course, of extra import when dealing with BLPs.  Chickenmonkey  19:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Harassment campaign

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)

I moved this section to the bottom of the page per WP:TOPPOST. The content you added is not an appropriate use of a self published source because you are not using that source for self-description. Rather, you are using it to analyze and characterize her actions yourself. Do her own tweets say that she caused controversy? No, that is your analysis. Do her own posts characterize her tweets as a harassment campaign? No, that is your description. That's WP:OR. Undue weight is also a problem. If independent sources aren't covering this, as you acknowledge, then it probably doesn't belong in the article at all and it certainly doesn't merit as much coverage as you are giving it. Please do not restore this content until there is a consensus to do so. You may want to try WP:BLPN for a second opinion. Squeakachu (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)