Talk:Hot Sugar (musician)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

Please change

On November 12, 2018, Hot Sugar's Moon Money EP was removed from the label Ninja Tune in response to multiple sexual, physical, and emotional abuse allegations.

to

On November 12, 2018, the record label Ninja Tune removed Hot Sugar's Moon Money EP from their catalog in response to multiple sexual, physical, and emotional abuse allegations. In a statement posted on Instagram, Hot Sugar denied the allegations as "false and disparaging."

on "Career" section.

Also, please change

Break World Records, Noise Collector

to

Break World Records, Noise Collector, Ninja Tune

at "Label" parameter on {{Infobox musical artist}}.

Thanks, 153.215.43.54 (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: per WP:NOTNEWS.  Spintendo  02:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2018

EDM.com ("We clearly label posts sponsored by our partners as well as music released by the record labels with which we partner") is a biased, unreliable source.

Per WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:SPONSORED, and WP:RSBREAKING, please remove

On November 12, 2018, Hot Sugar's Moon Money EP was removed from the label Ninja Tune in response to multiple sexual, physical, and emotional abuse allegations.

Thanks, 153.206.142.168 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: EDM making a policy statement that they have and label sponsored content on their website doesn't automatically make every article on that site sponsored, biased, or unreliable. Just the opposite, in fact - if a source uses sponsored content and it is not clearly labeled, that makes the source unreliable. I don't see any statements attached to that article that indicate it is sponsored content. As such, I see no reason under any of the policies and guidelines you posted to remove this from the article. If you believe EDM.com as a whole is an unreliable source, I suggest making a post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018

Please remove

On November 12, 2018, Hot Sugar's Moon Money EP was removed from the label Ninja Tune in response to multiple sexual, physical, and emotional abuse allegations.

per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:RSBREAKING. Thanks, 153.229.218.94 (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See previous section. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 03:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Misconduct allegations

In November 2018, indie labels Ninja Tune and Ghost Ramp announced the removal of Hot Sugar's music from their catalogs in response to multiple sexual, physical, and emotional abuse allegations.

References

This section has been repeatedly edit-warred over, most recently by IP 153.165.135.190 who stated on their talkpage that "Hot Sugar, the subject of the article, called these allegations "false and disparaging." He also stated that they "are co-conspirators who have engaged in libel and slander, among other unlawful acts, against [Hot Sugar] over the course of years including recently through various social media publications such as Twitter and Wikipedia.""

I have advised the IP to source the rebuttal and restore the entire thing, as the allegations appear to be neutrally-written and thoroughly-sourced. Parking the whole thing here for posterity. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Article protected

Protected for two months. See Special:Diff/882515312 for the concerns. Any admin can lift this protection if they are convinced that BLP problems will not recur. If we do wind up including a statement about the women's allegations in the article, it probably needs to include the responses by Koenig's attorney. Most likely some kind of statement would be OK, even now, if it were very carefully worded. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The two months of full protection have expired. I urge anyone who still has concerns about WP:BLP to explain their issue, either here or at a noticeboard. It appears well-sourced that Hot Sugar was dropped by his record company due to misconduct allegations. It ought to be permissible to say that on Wikipedia, without having to conclude whether the allegations are true. Consider filing at WP:BLPN if you disagree. In January, the Daily Beast conducted actual interviews with some of the women who complained. This is clearly a step above random posts on the internet. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, the subject's statement, which denies these allegations, should be included in the article. 153.202.230.172 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've adjusted to include that statement. If this doesn't meet with your approval, please discuss such a sweeping change of tone before attempting to reinstate it. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding original research. The sources you provide don't state that there are "multiple sexual, physical, and emotional abuse allegations", which means you added WP:BLP-violating content. You also removed Hot Sugar's filing a defamation lawsuit against Ricky Eat Acid and Fish Narc, which is relevant to this case (Pitchfork). 124.85.214.216 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The quote you have there is from the EDM.com source. The Pitchfork source was already included in the statement on the page. None of this is original research; he was dropped from his record company due to multiple allegations of abuse that was "physical, emotional and sexual in nature" (direct quote from the EDM.com article, by the way), and he denied the allegations. You need to discuss why you have a problem with sourced content here on the talkpage or at the BPLN noticeboard before you make this change again.

Further, it's extremely unhelpful to just undo an edit without working towards a consensus, so how's this - I added the defamation lawsuit in, while restoring the content to his Career section (guidelines recommend against a 'controversy' section, though that's not a rule per se) and restoring the wikilink to United States (not sure why you removed that). How does this work for you? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In {{Infobox musician}}, we use "U.S." instead of "[[United States]]".

These sentences belong mostly if not entirely to the subject's personal life, so they need to be placed at the "Controversy" section, not at the "Career" section, in chronological order. According to EDM.com, only one person accused Hot Sugar of "violence and abuse [which] was physical, emotional and sexual in nature", so we cannot add "multiple sexual, physical, and emotional abuse allegations" to the article. I would also like you to explain why you have repeatedly removed the names of the accusers (Ricky Eat Acid's wife Kitty and Molly Soda). 124.85.214.216 (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I restored "violence and abuse was physical, emotional and sexual in nature" as Kitty's statement (Special:Diff/892072973). 124.85.214.216 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal Life Section

I was told that mere trivia should not be included in one's wikipedia page.

I do not think this section should be included as all it includes are just two of Hot Sugar's ex-girlfriends. I do not see what this adds, as it is not listed on anybody else's Wikipedia page.

this is mere trivia, and should not be included.

Can we please kindly remove that section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1525:A39:4163:2B2D:BD74:6876 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeing that these women are among those who later leveled abuse allegations at Hot Sugar, this is not just mere trivia, but a connection that ought to be noted. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Can't that be noted in the controversy section? I don't see the use of a full section to note that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1525:A39:4163:2B2D:BD74:6876 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing with the use of controversial sources

There is a new paragraph added in Controversy section on "alleged sexual allegation" - all made by an anonymous IP. A quick review of the sources shows that this is a clear violation of WP:BLP.

First, for those who are not familiar with Wikipedia policy on eligible sources, I'd like to share this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Now, back to the used sources:

• https://www.thedailybeast.com/he-beat-me-until-i-woke-up-superstar-producer-hot-sugars-accusers-speak-out

On Daily Beast from the Wikipedia: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.

• https://nypost.com/2018/11/14/label-cuts-ties-with-dj-after-allegations-of-sexual-abuse/

On The New York Post:

There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticize its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department.

Finally, this source:

• https://edm.com/news/hot-sugar-ep-dropped-ninja-tune-allegations-sexual-violence

I'm less familiar with this source, but it shows no journalist name here and the article is written in a tabloid style.

I took my time and did extra search on the the same topic. Here is what I found:

• https://jezebel.com/multiple-people-accuse-music-producer-hot-sugar-of-sexu-1830567537

Jezebel makes all conclusions based on .. Daily Beast, which is not eligible for this subject. I haven't found any other solid sources on the same topic, so the information has to be removed. Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your points swing back around to Daily Beast being unreliable, however that "[t]here is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast" shouldn't be ignored. And certainly not reason enough to remove it all. Especially in light of the previous discussions on the matter. The information should restored. 2601:47:4200:3310:15AE:CAC5:B031:F995 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The specific Daily Beast article includes the women themselves as sources. If the Jezebel article's validity is going to be based in part on it's source (The Daily Beast), then shouldn't the validity of the Daily Beast article also be based on it's sources (the women themsevles)? I don't see why the content of the article shouldn't be just as much of a factor as where it was published.

Several of Hot Sugar's accusers including artist Kitty posted their accusations on social media but have since taken them down following legal action by Hot Sugar against Ricky Eat Acid (Kitty's husband). I would hope that Wikipedia editors are aware that the US judicial system is heavily biased against survivors of sexual violence, but given that the site's editors are majority male I wouldn't be surprised if editors don't know. It's VERY obvious that Hot Sugar (and probably a bunch of other men accused during the Me Too era) is using his money to make people forget about the many allegations of sexual misconduct against him and it's influencing Wikipedia as well.

The Controversy section of the article currently makes no mention of specifically what Ricky Eat Acid and Fish Narc had done leading up to the article and only contains quotes from Hot Sugar himself. "Hot Sugar, Accused of Abuse" is literally in the title of the article sourced in the Controversy section. It's a major aspect of the the lawsuit against the spouse of a woman who went public about being abused by Hot Sugar and it's just not mentioned at all. Intentionally or not, the decision to remove any reference to the allegations is protecting a man with multiple documented accusations of sexual misconduct. 2601:189:8081:A810:10AA:9B53:4E4A:7F9E (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)