Jump to content

Talk:Will Smith

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 15 (talk | contribs) at 08:44, 2 April 2022 (→‎Oscars incident in lead: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

Add section "2022 Oscars Incident"

This section is to explain the incident at the 2022 Oscars where Will Smith smacked Chris Rock.

Add "While presenting the award for Best Documentary Feature, Chris Rock made a joke about being excited for G.I Jane 2. This was a joke directed at Jada Pinkett smiths recent dealings with alopecia. Will Smith subsequently walked on stage and struck Chris Rock. Will Smith then proceeded to walk off stage and continued a brief back and forth argument.

Sources

[1]

[2] TheSteven97 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/27/entertainment/will-smith-chris-rock/index.html
  2. ^ https://variety.com/2022/film/news/chris-rock-punches-will-smith-oscars-fight-1235216387/
 Partly done - User:WeirdWikiGuy has made a mention of the incident in the section titled "2020–present: Memoir and King Richard" and it has been included as a section at 94th Academy Awards. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oscars and hitting Chris Rock

Since no one has done it yet, I might as well start the discussion. I agree with that it's best to keep Will Smith hitting Chris Rock out of the article for now given WP:Recentism etc. That said, IMO it's going to be a losing battle. I think we can be fairly sure this incident is going to have enough staying power to be of lasting significance to this article. I mean all sources talking about his win mention the earlier confrontation and his partial apology in his acceptance speech and that's before either the Academy or Academy Award producers or both make any statement, or anything from any authorities. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this articlr will now suffer from recentism due to this event. please keep it just to something like "Smith assaulted Chris Rock, who was presenting the Best Documentary nominees, at the 2022 Academy Awards after Rock made a joke about Jada Pinkett. He apologized in his speech upon winning the Best Actor nomination."2607:FEA8:BDA0:1A8F:D054:5BA5:2CD0:F33C (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, WP:Recentism should only apply when an article is heavily focused on a recent event and less focused on passed events in that article. Right now, all we have in the article is a three sentence paragraph with a link to a more detailed section in the 94th Academy Awards article. I think that having a blurb here about the incident and leaving the extra details in the other article would not be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is inevitable to include this and to avoid RECENTISM issues, it should be brief. The entire Oscars ceremony, including Chris Rock and Best Actor can be two or three sentences and not get WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What?? Whether Rock knew about Pinkett's condition or not, Smith's reaction—going considerably out of his way to employ physical violence in response to a verbal offense—was an awful model for the many young, impressionable people who admire him. To disregard the incident is to ignore what is apparently a significant part of his personality about which we might not otherwise know. How would that be good biography? – AndyFielding (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does mention the incident right now, but it's not accurate. It currently says the incident happened during the opening monologue, when in fact, it happened much later in the night as Rock was about to give the award for Best Documentary. 74.96.248.90 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that Chris Rock did not joke about Jada's alopecia. The joke was about her bald head which was widely reported to be caused by alopecia. Odds are good that Chris Rock didn't know. I'm not sure how to rewrite this on the wiki page, but I think it would be inaccurate and probably a violation of WP:BLP to state that Rock outright attacked her for her disability. Kire1975 (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting someone in the head can kill them. As someone with male pattern baldness, which is the SAME damn thing, I have no right to hit someone if they joked about my hair loss. “Disability?” gtfo. Complete BLP violation. 2600:1012:B057:E1DF:18CF:6120:EE67:7917 (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it's not a disability. That being said, it is a much bigger deal for a woman to go bald than it is for a man.
I also think that any mention of this incident in the article needs to take into account whether this was a genuine assault, or something that was staged in advance where all parties gave their consent. We need to wait for reliable sources to verify it, either way.
Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alopecia for a black woman and male pattern baldness are not at all the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their etiologies are different. Autoimmune vs. DHT. But you don’t get to claim it’s somehow less worthy of a joke or more deserving of sympathy, sorry. I hated losing my hair, and it gives me a lot of sympathy for Mrs. Smith and even her husband (not his violence though). The only newsworthy (and wikipedia-worthy) aspect of the incident was the physical assault that took place. If the assault did not happen, there is no way this joke would even be covered by any media really. Comeon. It’s a purely cosmetic autoimmune issue that we absolutely must not claim is even close to being a “disability”. That a extremely wealthy and settled black woman experiencing hair loss deserves to be looked at differently than a young man losing their hair prematurely and subject to the ridicule of school peers is extremely ignorant and frankly, bigoted. 2600:1012:B057:E1DF:18CF:6120:EE67:7917 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alopecia redirects to Hair loss. However, there is a different article called Alopecia areata. I can see how this could be confusing to people who are not familiar with it. Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should be given some prominence. A person in a privileged position and a role model for many of the world's youngsters committing an act of gross physical violence on a very public stage with millions of people watching is not acceptable and should be clearly shown so that people can judge it for themselves. As for protecting his wife against a joke, poor taste or not, this is the relationship about which he was happy to give an interview in GQ magazine about their 'open relationship'. It was a matter of inflated ego and weak anger management... the same sort of thing that leads to wars when exhibited by some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.103.252 (talk) 9:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kire1975: I had made an edit to try to resolve this. Does it look better here or do you think it needs more improvements? --Super Goku V (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently reads: "... apologized to the Academy and the other nominees in a highly emotional acceptance speech". It does not make explicit the fact that he did not apologize to the person he hit, a highly significant fact. Omission of this presents him in an artificially positive light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:D40:E93E:1:1:2D46:C669 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that he didn't apologize to Rock. That's noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People keep undoing my edit to add 'Altercation at the 94th Academy Awards' in the sub-section for Will Smith's Career from 2020 onwards. The altercation did happen, and adding it to the title would differentiate it from coverage of King Richard's release in 2021. Adding this to the subsection would be informative to readers on the significance and severity of impact Will Smith's unprecedented act has on media coverage and celebrity culture as a whole. The use of physical force during the Academy Awards, the most prestigious ceremony within the whole film industry, is worth highlighting Senseidavidtav (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think it must also be clarified that the Altercation between Will Smith and Chris Rock wasn't scripted, as Academy officials confirmed this [1] and the Academy also released a Tweet condemning the violence. There is a lot of skepticism and confusion around this incident, and it is important to inform people that the altercation wasn't scripted as some sort of stunt designed to boost ratings as some people seem to believe Senseidavidtav (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Information about whether or not it was scripted can go to 94th Academy Awards. I just trimmed the paragraph because this content is becoming WP:UNDUE due to the WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was my wording. Sorry about that. (I was trying to keep in mind how much I wrote since it isn't intended to be that long here.) Super Goku V (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subheader CONTROVERSY should not be in all caps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.155.5 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientologists or not?

Smith gave $1.3 million to charities in 2007, of which $450,000 went to two Christian ministries, and $122,500 went to three Scientology organizations...

I find it very odd that (except for references) this is the article's only mention of Scientology. Are Smith and his wife Scientologists or not? If not, does anyone know what motivated them to give such a large amount of money to such an otherwise polarizing group? Either way, considering what a controversial movement Scientology is, does it make sense to mention it so blithely in an otherwise comprehensive bio? Certainly some follow-through is possible without getting tabloid-y. – AndyFielding (talk)

I did a basic search and a decent portion of the articles that come up are unusable, which might be part of the problem. Without sources, there is nothing to write about. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to Jada's BLP, it was her time costarring with Tom Cruise in Collateral that led them to make the donations. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022 (2)

In the section of his career regarding the events at the 2022 Oscars, the expletive word Smith used was included in the edit. I believe the profanity should be removed and replaced with [Expletive] 143.117.255.86 (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wikipedia has a policy about not censoring profanity when used in the article and I don't presently see a path where the quote would be deemed as not necessary. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noooo a naughty word. However will my poor innocent mind recover. 189.217.88.120 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have to curse to sell records, but when you crack a joke about his wife's medical condition... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Justifying certain strains of violence, based on superficial characteristics, was a thing in the 19-20th century in the United States. Oftentimes, like with Emmett Till, it was sparked by romantic anger. Let’s not trivialize this by delving too much into “justification” rationales. That was an ugly period in US history. Two sitting US legislators, Pressley and Bowman, actually tweeted their support for this violence at some point. Again, people easily die when being struck in the head (and subconcussive impacts often take their ugly toll years later). A sickening amount of publications (still a minority) have sought to rationalize the violence to some degree. Those viewpoints should be characterized as WP:FRINGE and not incorporated here; furthermore, editors should not trivialize the violence on this talk page, for the sake of class. Public figures, who should know better, are not paid to be actual thugs who engage in violence at the workplace and spread backwards values to impressionable children in living rooms around the country. 174.193.198.165 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will be hard work to ensure that this doesn't become another fan page. Seems to be a daily effort to remove any mention of the slapping incident based on incredibly specious reasoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with formatting

There is a problem with the formatting of a sentence under the “politics” section. Seems to be on mobile and desktop. The sentence has something to do with Israel but is only a few words and letters with citations in between. Tankpiggy18 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original text. “ . in Israel."ehwed $1.2 10.” Note that there are some refrences in between. Tankpiggy18 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are on the wrong article. "Israel" doesn't appear in the article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oscars incident in lead

I think that we should mention the Oscars slap/altercation/assault in the article lead. I think this does stand the test of time and is not WP:RECENTIST: it's not unreasonable to speculate that more people will remember the 94th Academy Awards as the one where Will Smith hit Chris Rock, rather than the one where he won the Academy Award for Best Actor. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It is WP:RECENTISM to put it in the lead. We really don't know if the slap will pass the WP:10YT or that per MOS:LEAD it is the article's most important contents. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Importance is determined by one objective measure: coverage in reliable sources. Saying this fails Wikipedia:10YT is baseless. Attention in reliable sources gives every indication this is a prominent and enduring controversy, and MOS lead requires we mention {{tq|prominent controversies.}} Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. At least as of now, this isn't an event that defines him as a person worthy of inclusion in a summary of his overall life. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Improper removal citing DUE and RECENTISM, but leaving a description of the award? MOS:LEAD explicitly requires inclusion of prominent controversies and makes no mention of "recentism." There is no prohibition on including notable events in the lead that may also be recent. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We know that winning an Oscar for Best Actor is LASTING. There can be debate about whether or not this is a prominent controversy. When the RECENTISM fades, will we think it's that big of a deal? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I view lasting significance as part of prominence. It is too early to tell how lasting this controversy will be. Until we know, it should not be in the lead. (Also see WP:CRYSTAL.) 15 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of clarification, can the editors citing Wikipedia:CRYSTAL please point to the speculation about future events that that policy concerns? In fact, these predictions or presumptions that everything will be forgotten run contrary to the available sources providing coverage of the event. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is "This will undoubtedly remain a significant talking point in his bio particularly in the context of the award" – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, based on reliable source coverage, not fanciful guesswork. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources don't tell us what will be notable tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Smith just resigned from the Academy. Further disciplinary action is likely imminent. There is, and already was, enough coverage to determine that this is leadworthy per the standards in MOS:LEAD, which are intended to ensure the article reflects a neutral and complete summary of the subject's bio. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but support as a general reference to his “actions that have created the public image of his family” as “garnering widespread attention”; this would presumably cover his alleged “open relationship”, how his children’s career’s have springboarded from their parents’, etc. He hasn’t earned a “black book by wikipedia lede” (yet), but certainly in the eyes of many, he is “on notice”. 2600:1012:B06F:2CF:F097:A566:337:327D (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this is how we write articles. This is why consensus is not a vote count. Please read the relevant policies, I've cited them below. Thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A few weeks from now this won't even be news, just like the controversial slap in France a few years ago is long forgotten, but his Oscar win will remain historic and significant. Dump this somewhere further down in his personal life section if it must remain. Definitely doesn't belong in the lede section. This is not a case of a leader invading a different sovereign country and therefore it should forever be mentioned in the lede of his bio. This is just an overblown incident between two top entertainers. I mean Jarvis Cocker invaded the stage of a Michael Jackson concert a few decades ago, which became front page news, but you don't see that in his lede either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.135.5 (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "But Ukraine" has nothing to do with Will Smith's bio. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. for obvious reasons apparent to anyone not working for Will Smith's PR firm 2A00:A040:19E:7152:F5C3:169B:5A0F:AA3E (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that this is grounded in policy--without doubt, the guy who has been badgering everyone else using supposedly invalid rationales will turn up to berate you. Oh, wait... 15 (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It isn't clear at this point in time that the slap will have lasting repercussions to his career or his life. All we have right now is that there was an incident which has become a meme online and that there is an investigation into the incident. In one sense, it is a notable controversy. In another, it isn't clear if this will be a defining moment or if it will be relegated to a footnote in his life. (Additionally, I think that the current situation of the incident having a stand-alone section is going into too much detail about the incident.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will Smith Apologizes to Chris Rock After Academy Condemns His Slap, The New York Times, Mar. 28 2022 ([https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/28/movies/oscars-will-smith-slap-reactions.htmlLink).
No, it's not a "meme." Yes, there are already repercussions. Yes, these same arguments failed at the deletion discussion for the article page. If we're going to do an RfC, we should apply a formal template to attract a wider range of views. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you are multiple IP users now... An upgrade from just "editor", perhaps? 15 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note The users claiming the Chris Rock altercation is "not significant" are going to great lengths to ignore a significant body of reliable source coverage, yet reinstating positive movie reviews in the lead that garnered far less attention? This page is a PR job. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC) MOS:LEAD:[reply]

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. We have here a prominent controversy based on reliable source coverage. There are several articles about this already in each of the major national outlets in the United States and internationally.

WP:LASTING is only relevant to whether or not an event is notable enough to have its own article. There is already a page that has been created on the incident. The result of an attempted deletion nomination was expedited keep.

WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with notability or designing a lead. It is meant to ensure that article content does not veer into pure speculation. Another mis-citation of policy.

WP:10YT is a rough guideline for how to structure articles overall. It is not specific to the lead of an article, and the arguments that "all will be forgotten" in a week's time are specious and disruptive.

The incident has rocked the entertainment industry and will clearly have a lasting impact on Smith, and likely Rock. Even being investigated by the Academy is already a signal of how serious the matter is. We need to keep things in perspective; we also need to focus on citing the correct policy, following the correct policy, and assessing available coverage free of wishful thinking. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING the process. We know your vote. You only get one. You don't need to respond to every vote that goes against yours or make this "note".
I'm evaluating on the relevant policy and pointing out that previous policy cites are inaccurate. I think a bit of discussion is warranted as well? Especially where we have "votes" that are not quite citing the correct policy. A more substantive response would be useful. Consensus is not a vote.
Oh, and we have a third, fourth article on the incident from the New York Times this morning. More coverage as the investigation proceeds is expected. Incidents that have additional, external consequences -- sparking investigations, verdicts, disciplinary action, etc, are presumed prominent. Article here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like it or not, from here on in, this is all he will be known for. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Will_Smith&oldid=1080611189"