Talk:Hudson Williams

Talent management

hello, I know hudson is part of CAA but is he not managed by red talent management too? Or is it the same thing? ~2026-49355-4 (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Red Talent Management is his Canadian management team, based in in Vancouver, B.C. He is now under Creative Artists Agency, based in New York and Los Angeles. He kept both management teams. Hannahblue13 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

CAA are his agents, RED Talent Management are his managers. They are both current, colleagues and represent Hudson Globally. ~2026-35115-12 (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Leilani Houston (CAA) is Hudson Williams brand manager. ~2026-34871-58 (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2026

Hudson Williams won the Best First Time Director award at the 2026 Hollywood ShortFest for his short movie Rancid, together with co-director Alex Vance, on April 19th. Rancid actress Martina Vos also won Best Actress for her work in the movie.. Hannahblue13 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 18:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

It was reported by people who were present at the 2026 Hollywood ShortFest.

Some links:

https://www.reddit.com/r/hudsonwilliams/comments/1sqiusr/hudson_williams_and_alex_vance_won_best_firsttime/

https://x.com/hudsonwupdates/status/2046124621041459494 Hannahblue13 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Both are social media posts and not acceptable per WP:SPS. Reliable sources should be WP:SECONDARY which are WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 18:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

From the 2026 Hollywood ShortsFest official instagram account:

"Rancid won two awards, Best Actress and Best First Time Director"

https://www.instagram.com/stories/hollywoodshortsfest/3879386987363223476/ Hannahblue13 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2026

Adding a listicle section for Hudson Williams based on his inclusion in Gold House's Gold 100 List

Name of publisher, year listed, name of listicle, and placement Gold House, 2026, Gold 100 List, Included

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/gold-100-gold-house-list-2026-1236581647/ Myajin (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: As the significance and relevance of this particular list has not been established, and we generally don't have separate sections for "listicles". Day Creature (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2026

Please remove the portion speaking about the swastika, as it was done to him as a minor, as a hate crime against a POC. That is inaccurate information.

In June 2026, Williams faced criticism after an old high school photo resurfaced online showing him with various marker drawings on his face, including a swastika on his forehead. According to sources cited by TMZ, the photo was taken during a senior-year school tradition where students drew on each other with markers. A source close to Williams said he was unaware of what was being drawn on his face at the time.[47] Friends described the incident as immature behavior by teenagers and said Williams now regrets any hurt the image may have caused. Williams has not publicly commented on the controversy, and E! News reported that his representatives had not yet responded to requests for comment. Amberlays (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:NOTCENSORED. All material seems well sourced. You say "That is inaccurate information." Please clarify what specifically you believe is innacurate and provide a source. meamemg (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for neutral wording revision

I would like to propose a more neutral rewrite of the paragraph in the "Personal life" section regarding the resurfaced high school photograph, per WP and WP concerns. The current wording places strong emphasis on controversy framing ("faced criticism") and gives disproportionate attention to a juvenile incident. The following version retains the sourced information while presenting it in a more neutral and concise tone:

"In June 2026, media outlets reported on a resurfaced high school photograph of Williams, taken when he was a minor, depicting various marker drawings on his face, including a swastika. Reporting by TMZ stated that the photograph was taken during a senior-year school tradition in which students drew on one another with markers, and that a source close to Williams said he was unaware of the specific drawings at the time.[47] Subsequent commentary in outlets including Queerty and Paris Match discussed the online circulation of the image and the public reaction surrounding it. Williams has not publicly commented on the matter."

Additional sources discussing the media reaction and circulation of the image: https://www.queerty.com/turn-down-the-heat-unpacking-the-hudson-williams-20260608/ https://www.parismatch.com/People/hudson-williams-la-trop-chere-rancon-de-la-gloire-270379 Gyomaxu (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Request no longer necessary, as the content has been removed pending discussion.

Unverified swastika drawing coverage

I removed the coverage of the swastika drawing. My initial concern was that this is simply WP:UNDUE. We do not cover every bit of drama and gossip. The amount of coverage is not all that matters when you have dozens of outlets publishing near-identical pieces that restate the original TMZ reporting and publish various social media posts. My bigger concern after reviewing the content and the sources is that the photo is entirely unverified. This raises serious WP:BLP concerns and we should not be stating in "wiki voice" that the photo is him nor should be devoting coverage to the current controversy. The HuffPo article that we cited states A photo surfaced purportedly of the younger actor and goes on to describe unnamed sources quoted by TMZ. More recent sources like this from EW continue to describe the photo as unverified. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, per WP:UNDUE and also the essay WP:10YT. Wracking ^talk! 01:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a good perspective, thank you. I was thinking *maybe* something could be written summarizing some of the fan drama on the whole, using two or three high quality sources. But I think even that is not warranted and the swastika photo story, specifically, is inappropriate. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think some extra time is warranted to write something that effectively and concisely summarizes significant responses to Williams' rise to prominence. The fan drama (including the recent TMZ reports) has received extensive media attention and should be addressed in some way, but this is ultimately an encyclopedic biography article and too much focus on social media raises WP:DUE and WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC issues. Some of the reactions might also be more apt for the Heated Rivalry article. Wracking ^talk! 00:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Good sourcing that provides an overview of the broader phenomenon would establish what is due, as opposed to the gossipy play-by-play in near-identical articles that use many of the same quotes and social media posts. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It's been heavily reported. It's not just gossip.

Here are some verifiable sources:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/hudson-williams-sparks-backlash-over-204611401.html

https://ew.com/simu-liu-defends-hudson-williams-after-resurfaced-photo-sparks-backlash-11995264

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hudson-williams-swastika_n_6a2684d6e4b022a41ab329ff

https://www.them.us/story/hudson-williams-swastika-marker-statement

https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/a/bernadette-giacomazzo/hudson-williams-swastika-photo-scandal-heated-rivalry Decrow0 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this counters the arguments made above by User:Wracking and User: Myceteae. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

what do you mean? these are credible sources verifying the term of events Decrow0 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Just because something can be sourced does not necessarily mean it belongs in a biography. See WP:NOTGOSSIP. What do I mean? I mean, you haven't engaged at all with the arguments by User:Myceteae at the top of this section. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't just a numbers game. The fact that there are dozens or even hundreds of near-identical articles that essentially regurgitate the original TMZ reporting does not address any of the reasons why this content is inappropriate. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

you literally have a paragraph about what he wore to the met gala

why is credible sources about his swastika face marking not relevant? Decrow0 (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Please at least skim through WP:BLP (the Biographies of living people policy). There is a high bar for including negative or scandalous material, as summarized in the lead:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

For what it's worth, I do think coverage in other parts of the article could be trimmed. We could probably do without his Met Gala outfit although the critical difference is that there is no concern that mentioning it is part of a smear campaign and the reporting on it is straightforward and direct, not full of the kind of hedging and careful language in the swastika drawing coverage. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

the swastika drawing coverage is not hedging. Decrow0 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The hedging is in the way the story is coverage. Almost every source that's been shared talks about what the photos appear to show or describes them as unverified and makes it clear that the posts are from random, anonymous X accounts and that quotes are from unidentified sources. Let me emphasize that this is not the only issue but one of several overlapping problems with the coverage. Even if the photos were "verified" or the sources were revealed tomorrow this would still likely wind up as a minor controversy and not a major milestone in his life or career that deserves space in the article. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of his attendance at the Met Gala; a single, neutrally-worded sentence about attendance at a notable and prestigious fashion event is not fluff. Wracking ^talk! 21:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

what does it have to do with his career? Decrow0 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree it was premature to remove this, despite my earlier comment that it probably could be. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I initially added the description of the Met Gala outfit because it fit the theme and was discussed in the media; Williams has a brand affiliation with Balenciaga (mentioned earlier in the article); and there is an accompanying photo. An alternative could be to move some of the info to the photo caption. Lizzie Nonesuch (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful context. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)