Talk:Jennifer Hudson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Splitting "Family murders"?[edit]

Not to split. The count is not so interesting, the arguments are, and Robofish and AniMate cite policy and common sense. Jim Michael's point (he argued it at most length) is convincing as well, and if it's not clear what something should be called then we should probably not have an article on it. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This article is mainly about Jennifer Hudson herself. Even though this section describes significance about death of some Hudson's family memebers, I feel someone, an expert of this (sub)topic or whatever it is called, must create an article about those events themselves, as the murder topic is almost too distracting. --George Ho (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article name has been suggested. I concur that this can be split, as notability is achieved through widespread coverage in secondary sources regarding the event and trial. I believe the article should be named something else, such as Murders of Darnell Donnerson, Jason Hudson and Julian King or something similar, to conform with other articles on similar subjects. Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May be precise. What about Murders of Jennifer Hudson's family members? That is more concise. Still, I am not an expert on and interested on those murders, but I am glad you agree with the split. Or... how about Murders of Jennifer Hudson's mother, brother, and nephew if precision is needed? This is more general than those obscure names. --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK with separate article, as I believe these murders to be notable independent of the fact that the victims are family of Jennifer Hudson. As to the name, none of the versions suggested are particularly plausible search terms; Murders of Darnell Donnerson, Jason Hudson and Julian King seems fine to me.  --Lambiam 11:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needs extra comma: Murders of Darnell Donnerson, Jason Hudson, and Julian King. --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to oppose this suggested split. Unlike, say, the Manson Family murders, I'm not convinced that these murders are notable independent of Hudson herself. Secondly, there's just not that much to say about them: 'Some people were murdered by a man who was later convicted of those murders'. That's not enough for a separate article; if anything, this article goes into too much unnecessary detail about them already. Robofish (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how unconvinced you are, but we will get into summarizing those event in this article later. However, the topic is more about those events than those people themselves. For example, Tyler Clementi is redirect to Suicide of Tyler Clementi because he meets WP:BIO1E. The same could go for involved victims and convicted if consensus says so. The reactions toward events, such as Jennifer Hudson's reactions, could help benefit, just in case of notability. --George Ho (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I found out the Manson Family murders is a redirect to Charlie Manson (I mean) Charles Manson. If those murders were notable, how is this not a guarantee to benefit a stand-alone article? Also, Manson article is about him himself and his petty crimes, and murders by Manson... I don't know why, but... I'm confused, while Hudson article is mainly about her herself and contributions to music genre, and the murders of Hudson family is totally... totally different from what the Hudson article is all about, even when those murders affected Jennifer significantly. --George Ho (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also opposed to the move. Unfortunately the murders, while tragic, are really only notable because the involved her. Once this isn't front page news anymore, it would probably be wise to trim the section down to an appropriate length. When the only real claim to notability is that it happened to a celebrity an event is not and should not be considered suitable as a stand alone article. AniMate 12:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, I wonder: this article describes the jurors' reactions toward this case. How substantial must the murder events benefit as a stand-alone article rather than only relevant to Jennifer? I mean: inherented notability is already proven, so how can the topic's independent notability be proven? --George Ho (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the victims all have different names, Murders of Darnell Donnerson, Jason Hudson, and Julian King would be the title. We can't call it Hudson family murders, because only one victim had that surname. We shouldn't call it something like Murders of Jennifer Hudson's family members because that implies that the murders had something to do with the fact they were related to her. There is no suggestion that the killings had anything to do with her, although she is obviously significantly affected by the triple murder because the victims were closely related to her. William Balfour had a history of serious violent offending and murdered three members of his estranged wife's family. His motive appears to have been sadism. He chose to kill his relatives-by-marriage and cause distress to his estranged wife, not to target a celebrity's family. It is incidental and irrelevant to him that his sister-in-law is famous. He is a destructive predator, not a fame-seeker or extortionist. Another alternative is to create the new article about him: William Balfour (murderer). In addition to the triple murder, he was convicted of an attempted murder years previously. Jim Michael (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we have, including me, implicitly four "supports" and two "opposes". As for the William Balfour, I don't know... He is notable for only murders closely related to his wife and Jennifer, which could count as one event to me. Two unrelated families would count as two events; two related as one... unless I misinterpreted badly. --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some random Murder of ... articles (Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings, Murder of David Lynn Harris, Murder of Vicky Lynn Hoskinson, Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, Murder of Emily Sander, Murders of Eve Stratford and Lynne Weedon), none of which involve any persons notable independent of the murder events, I only see my impression confirmed that the murders we are talking about here would also be notable without the coincidence of a family member being famous.  --Lambiam 23:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD discussion for you to peruse for an example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of David Lynn Harris. Other articles Lambiam mentioned have survived speedy and PROD deletions. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About "Billings murders", the article back then was formerly "Byrd and Melanie Billings"; the naming was concise but very contrary to the notability guidelines of people. Several name changes have been done in the past to meet other notability guidelines of events, although no logs of move have been recorded except in history logs: Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading WP:notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators. Most of all, Chandra Levy and Matthew Shepard meets WP:VICTIM notability guideline. Jennifer's mother and brother are consistent with WP:BIO1E, but I'm unsure about them meeting WP:VICTIM yet. The convicted himself meets WP:BIO1E, but I wonder if he meets WP:CRIME guideline. --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we have so many "Murder of ..." articles is because the unfortunate victims and the perpetrator aren't notable outside of the crime and people mistake searching Google News for actual research. Here the only reason this is notable is because of the direct relation to Jennifer Hudson. The articles about the reaction of the jurors is an attempt to show they weren't swayed by the fame of Jennifer Hudson. Unfortunately inner city crime rarely, if ever, gets this much attention, even in the case of a triple homicide. The absolute only reason this is getting attention is because of the Hudson connection. Also, we don't judge consensus by counting votes, as I'm sure your mentors would tell you George. AniMate 02:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that discussion counts more than votes; I am just counting votes because there were no bolded words prior. Still, you opposers have a point about its notability because, like inner city crimes, this might not meet WP:GNG, while supporters here a point about its own notability because everyone wants a separate page for readers who want to know more about the case and other notability guidelines might apply. The fact that the notability of this subject is into question must not prevent us from creating it. Whether the fame of Jennifer Hudson is related to the triple homicide must be detailed, just in case the source covers it either unilaterally or neutrally. Besides, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: there is no need to predict the subject's upcoming notability, the article's length (big or small), and chances of deletion. We must be bold and must still be bold to make the stand-alone article happen... or not happen, as we are doing right now. We might not know but must not predict the convict's sentence; we must wait for that. For years we must wait until the sources say the exact fate of the convict: I mean, either temporary or permanent life in prison, or death somewhere. --George Ho (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, if created, we must wait for deletion nominations, but we must not predict them. Moreover, we must not predict the outcome of deletion discussions, as future of this topic and of such discussion results are uncertain. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no urgency. Mr. William Balfour has not even been sentenced yet. His attorney has said she will file a motion for a new trial as well as prepare an appeal, which will continue to generate more coverage in reliable sources for some time to come. And most likely some crime authors have already negotiated a book contract with publishers. The easiest thing may be to keep developing the text of the section Family murders as if it is a stand-alone article (with some obvious differences such as the depth of subsection headings and no separate See also and References sections), so that it can be converted to a stand-alone article in due time with minimal efforts.  --Lambiam 21:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please split the murders off, they are significant themselves and this article should talk about Jennifer's reaction, not all the gory details.Insomesia (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed away some of the redundant prose, although it may be useful for the longer stand alone article. I also moved it into chronological order as there's no denying it impacted her entire career.Insomesia (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Friendship With U.S. President Donald Trump[edit]

It is being circulated on social media that the President sheltered Ms Hudson after the brutal killing of her family. Given the breadth and detail of the article particularly in the section on the murder, it might be worth including some discussion of this confirming/denying it. I am new so I don't really know how this works. Might be inappropriate to list, but I came here to look for the truth of the matter so perhaps it is useful information to be included?

70.127.17.241 (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that this is true (as reported back in 2008) but don't really think it's relevant to the article. SkyWarrior 03:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New External Link for TV Show[edit]

External link request for home of her tv show (JenniferHudsonShow.com) Jennifer Hudson Show, Coming to Daytime Fall 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inlandsun (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should an article be created for her new show, The Jennifer Hudson Show. I think we should wait Cwater1 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2022[edit]

Please change the word “women” to “woman” in this line from the top of the article: …” wins made her the second black women to receive …” 96.234.119.123 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022[edit]

Add Jennifer Hudson Show website to external links http://www.jenniferhudsonshow.com/ Inlandsun (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done mossypiglet (talk) Go blue! 00:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2024[edit]

In the first line of the article, there's a mention of Jennifer Hudson also being known as J Hud. Nobody calls her that and that part should either be removed or sourced. In my opinion it should be removed. 2603:8000:7200:5F9B:D3B6:2B07:D8A5:ECB8 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --TheImaCow (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jennifer_Hudson&oldid=1211605685"