Talk:Susan Sarandon

Her statement

Adding this sentence is crucial to understanding what she said. She made an accusation that is blatantly false, and it is not original research to cite this fact here. ". This is despite the fact that in 2022 according to the FBI there were over 7 times as many (1,122) hate crimes against Jews than there were against (158) Muslims."

Leaving her false allegation up without correction is a libel against the Jewish people, and a violation of Wikipedia:English Wikipedia non-discrimination policy

Truth matters and Wikipedia should pride itself on truth not antisemitism. Yestyest2000

It is against WP:SYNTH to be placing "Sarandon said X" from one source versus "Y is the truth" to create the suggestion that Sarandon lied; it's practically a textbook example. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As Nat says above, the disputed content is an example of synthesis. We don't have a source which compares Sarandon's statement with the rates of hate crime, so we should not make the comparison either. If a reliable source draws a comparison between Sarandon's statement and the rate of hate crime in the US, we could consider including it in her bio.

* Sarandon's statement was "There are a lot of people afraid of being Jewish at this time, and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country, so often subjected to violence". What allegation is she making? What is the "libel against the Jewish people"? Burrobert (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Calling this WP:SYNTH is false. either way there are articles linking some false numbers making the same point, so I will incorperate that into the article and then we'll see if you still have problems.

https://www.nysun.com/article/susan-sarandon-is-dropped-by-her-agent-after-saying-jews-coming-under-antisemitic-attacks-are-getting-a-taste-of-what-its-like-to-be-muslim-in-america

https://twitter.com/HonestReporting/status/1727103807300223113 Yestyest2000 (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you bring any exact wording here, with citations (from reliable sources) and gaining consensus prior to attempting to edit in any material concerning this again. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition. Twitter is not a RS, the second sentence was classic WP:SYNTH. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've blocked Yestyest2000 for a week for BLPvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

References

"After" but not "because of"

At this point, we have in both the intro and and the body of the article that her representation dropped her after her comments, and that matches what we have in the sources, that X happened after Y. What we don't have is sourcing saying she was dropped because of, due to, in response to those comments. There is no public statement from the agency being quoted. There's probably enough mention to justify including it in the body, but in the introduction? It's not as though we tend to mention representation at all in the intro for major actors, much less a change of representation. I think we should delete that final sentence. Thoughts? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler, I think there's an argument for removing the material in its entirety per WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE and WP:BLP given she wasn't even doing work for the agency. TarnishedPath^talk 07:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The agency was not representing her, is that what you're saying? If so, source? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there's no indication in any of the reporting that Sarandon was currently doing any work that they'd gotten for her, or had any upcoming work which came from them. Given how much UTA made this about themselves they would have put that in their press release. This appears to be nothing more than UTA big noting themselves. Even if the material does stay in the article, given that it takes up all of 13 words in the body of the article, there's extremely little argument for it to be lede at all. The amount of space it takes up in the lede (10 words) is almost as much as is take up in the body which is a ludicrous situation and not at all in keeping with MOS:LEADBIO, WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not finding anywhere where UTA "made this about themselves". Doing a quick Google search, I'm not seeing that they did anything but answer press inquiries with the simple statement that they no longer represent Sarandon. Given that her IMDb listing includes a work in "preproduction", that is a deal which was presumably negotiated through her agent. She is also in the cast of a TV series the release of which has been put on pause (for reasons relating to the war but not to Sarandon's comments on it) which is mentioned as a six-part series but could, presumably, have a second season (if ever released.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The very act of saying they are not representing someone is virtue signalling. There's no other way to interpret it than through the lense of PR. If they didn't want to make it about themselves, they would have decided to not represent her and not told the world about it.

In any case, I'm having a hard time seeing how something which makes up 13 words in the body gets 10 words in the lede. TarnishedPath^talk 02:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you show me where they "told the word about it" rather than answer inquiries? if someone calls you about someone that they think is your client but is a former client, telling them that you no longer represent them is the simple and direct answer, no signaling beyond the facts involved. Had they put out a press release announcing that they were no longer representing her, that might be a different matter, but I have found no sign that they did so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

After doing some searches, it appears you are correct. It appears as though it was Deadline that approached UTA. As I stated above though given that only 13 words is dedicated to this in the body of the article it seems WP:UNDUE to dedicate 10 words to it in the lede. TarnishedPath^talk 08:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have made the deletion from the introduction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's sensible. Not everything can be jammed into a lede just because it is the issue of the second. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)