Talk:Will Smith/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

Please change source #35 ("'Men in Black 3' Director Barry Sonnenfeld Talks Will Smith & Big Heads". screenrant.com) url from http://screenrant.com/men-black-3-interviews-barry-sonnenfeld-rothc-174166/ (which no longer points to reference) to http://screenrant.com/men-black-3-interviews-barry-sonnenfeld/ Vinadoros (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 06:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

gfruezbgnrebvgreiebgp^rure he tildes and curly brackets below.}} 217.136.229.140 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

Please change the birthday under "Family and Early Life" to match the correct birthday of September 25, 1968, and so it agrees with the birthday previously mentioned. --Sarth vader27 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've actually changed it to just say 15th and am not so sure how accurate 25th is. While his page at Biography.com lists September 25th, the book Encyclopedia of Pop Music Aliases, 1950-2000 says September 15th and has his correct birth name of "Willard Carroll Smith Jr." instead of the common error of "Willard Christopher Smith Jr." that Biography.com erroneously uses (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwH6tXG_0yo where Smith himself states his middle name is "Carroll" at 4:50). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

His birthday is on September 25th. His wife wrote him a heartfelt happy birthday message on a verified social media page on that specific date. Why would she wish him happy birthday on a date that wasn't his birthday? Additionally, news articles are always written about Will Smith enjoying and celebrating his birthday on September 25th, never on September 15th. ManyTheMiles (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dumbfounded

It never ceases to amaze the ease with which a single user, in this case Tenebrae, will eviscerate content provided by another contributor. I could to some extent understand this were a few things rolled back but I believe it absurd to suggest every single thing was somehow not notable. I failed to understand how I was turning this into a fan page in mentioning the failures of his film roles and giving opinions espoused by others, but I guess just listing films without any content backing them is satisfactory. I wondered at one point why such a high profile actor had a small article but now I understand; certain users here do not want additions. Informant16 June 15, 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2018

I would say please change West Philadelphia to Brooklyn but that seems a little presumptuous because my sourcing is so so. It says Will Smith was born in Philadelphia but in an interview with USA today in 2015 he says he was born in Brooklyn. (I won't link it but it's the truth or con interview with Margot Robbie at 1:35) 77.97.210.253 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done (yet) we can't really cite that unless you provide a URL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

Can you please add the World Music Awards winners category please? 2600:6C4E:580:46B:0:E653:2549:B879 (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 10:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

96.227.85.86 (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Make it say that he is the best youtuber in the world and a part time actor.

 Not done: personal opinions are not included, sorry DannyS712 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2018

On career, change his most popular video from "facing my biggest fear" to "Will Smith Bungee Jumps Out of a Helicopter!" because that has 18.5 million views The subscriber count on his YouTube channel needs to be updated as it has skyrocketed to 4.3 million Change 30 million total views to 162 million views WhatOnWhat (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Flooded with them hundreds 09:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Photo

The current photograph of Will Smith speaking at the 2017 Comic-con looks off in a way. Is it just me? Majestic513 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything off about it; can you please elaborate? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's the baldness that makes it look off. File:Will_Smith_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg is more what he normally looks like. Calidum 23:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Both images don't look great but then again I'm used to seeing Will with hair .... but I do agree the image looks somewhat odd. –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

Please add Will Smith's narration of National Geographic's One Strange Rock in 2018. It is not listed on his page. Thank you. Jenluvzu (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Only a few of his works are listed in this article. One Strange Rock and his other works are in the article Will_Smith_filmography RudolfRed (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Nearly bankrupt"

This phrase in the article does not match the interview from which it is sourced. Smith said he was "broke" (zero or negative net cash flow) not "bankrupt" (unable to meet debt payments). Please change the text to "struggling financially." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.143.210 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 01:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019

Update head shot to reflect Will Smith in 2019 within the infobox.

thumb|Will Smith head shot in 2019 SirFlux (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. This is likely a copyright violation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done No can do. Not unless a valid rationale could be supplied. See the Notice for this image (that you supplied) at Commons:

The uploader did not provide sufficient information (a valid and suitable tag) on this media's copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file could be deleted seven days after the upload (14 July 2019). Please note that Commons does not accept files claimed under fair use. It is suggested to read the intro of Commons' licensing policy, about essential information and (in many cases) about Internet images. If you need help ask at the Commons:Help desk.

And, do you own the rights to this image? Looks like it was actually taken in December 2017 in Los Angeles at the "Bright" premiere and not sometime in 2019... If you do not hold the rights to this image hosted on Shutterstock and release those rights to Commons/Wikipedia/Wikimedia with the appropriate CC-BY-SA license?... Again. No can do. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe that you should add the exact year of the split up between Will's folks as it must've had quite the major impact on him, being so young. It should not be left for the readers to imply. Also, I believe the paragraph regarding his achievements should be updated to show some more of his recent, more notable accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rylee23 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Where is his filmography

Where is Will Smiths Filmography?????? Franklove143 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Franklove143: In the infobox under his picture. Took me a second to remember to look there, but i've seen other performers' articles set up this way, too. --96.244.220.178 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

disambiguation

i think the hatnotes might be better combined, but i can't figure out how to make the {(about)} template do it:

This page is about an American actor. For others named Will Smith, see [[:William Smith (disambiguation) or Willard Smith (disambiguation)]].

How do i hide the brackets and colon? --96.244.220.178 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

dont trust Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.205.95.14 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

edit request

Please change

This page is about the American actor. For other people named Will Smith, see William Smith.

This page is about the American actor. For other people named Will Smith, see Willard Smith.

to

For other people named similarly, see William Smith (disambiguation) and Willard Smith (disambiguation).

Thanks! 96.244.220.178 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The article says that Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith have never appeared in a movie together. She actually appeared with him in "Ali" as the first wife of boxer Muhammed Ali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.146.15 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Westbrook Inc.

Can someone add something about his founding of Westbrook Inc.? Seems like they're rebooting Fresh Prince and have some other big movies coming out. [1] 47.188.36.216 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC) ≤

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

Jada and Will appeared in the film, Ali, together. Sperry3924 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia portion of Will Smith’s “personal life” states that he and wis wife, Jada Pinkett-Smith, have never appeared in a film together. However, this is inaccurate, as they appeared together in the 2001 film, Ali, for which they received several Oscar nominations. I would like to second the July 31, 2020 request that the information regarding Will and Jada never having appeared in a film together be corrected/updated, as the truth is that they have appeared together in a major feature film nearly twenty-years-ago. Thanks! MinutesUp (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Discography Addition

I suggest that Will Smith's album "Greatest Hits" released in 2002 be added to the discography list. Msallis882 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction

Rapping is not the only verbal music slash oral music that he performs. He does singing, also. The article should at least read at the beginning "Willard Carroll Smith Jr. (born September 25, 1968) is an American actor, rapper, singer and film producer." Not just "Willard Carroll Smith Jr. (born September 25, 1968) is an American actor, rapper, and film producer." And I have proof that he sings, too! It's called "Aladdin". Like when he sang the song "Prince Ali", but also "Friend Like Me". So there!

--72.68.0.219 (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? When he accepted his Grammy he claimed it was ironic for him to get one because he couldn't sing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •

Who's Fletcher?

...after Fletcher ended their relationship... Fletcher is not otherwise mentioned in the article. Koro Neil (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I just chopped out the excessive (unencyclopedic) detail. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Georgia voting law

In order to maintain a NPOV, I expanded the paragraph about the Georgia voting law to include, on first reference, the legal name of the voting law before the inclusion of the phrase "restrictive voting law."Kerdooskis (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation page? Better hatnote?

I was reading a newspaper article that mentioned a baseball player. Of course there are other Will Smiths! However, one would have a hard time figuring out how to find the baseball player because first you would have to know whether it was William or Willard. There aren't many Willards, though. And then what about the fictional character on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, who I was surprised to see has his own article? I tried adding the fictional character to the hatnote but that messed things up.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

modest success?

Umm, the Fresh Prince character went on to win the first Grammy for a Rap Artist, and had a string of memorable hits in the late 1980s-early 1990s. I'd call that more than 'modest'.72.174.71.134 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

When read in context, it's fine. He was modestly famous prior to the television show. -- Calidum 17:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Fluent in Spanish"

First, there is no source and second he is not fluent. yes, he speaks some spanish but its far from fluent. Any hispanohablante can notice

Agreed, I cannot find any such reference on The Guardian's website, and he is not fluent. I removed that entire sentence. Peter (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James Mackenzie (actor) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Jr vs II

In the release of Will Smith, his dad would always refer the Will as the II. Should this be changed? B.Valley (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No, if he has the exact same name as his dad he is a Jr. not a II. You can't be a II if he is the 1st in line. If he had a different middle name, he could be a II or if he shares the same exact name from a previous generation. Therefore II is incorrect, he is a Jr. 240D:1A:8AF:4D00:A43E:27ED:A4B0:3DA4 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

Change "Jr." to II as stated by Will Smith in his book Will.. 2607:FB91:2F0F:84A3:D9BD:EDD9:DAA9:4814 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Just reading this book now. So good! Jmbld (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Smith, Will; Manson, Mark (2021) Will, Penguin Publishing Group, ISBN 9781984877925

I saw this was reverted on 13 December with a source from Britannica. Smith confirmed he is II not junior in a source I've added from The Times. The section is paywalled but can be seen with a Google search of his full name. There is no way there is any better source for a man's name than himself. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad Boys II reference with wrong production year

From the 3rd paragraph of the first section: ... and its sequels Bad Boys II (2017) ...

Correct would be: ... and its sequels Bad Boys II (2003) ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:9F28:300:40F7:2844:3F26:1221 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

TheSteven97 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alopecia for a black woman and male pattern baldness are not at all the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've added that he didn't apologize to Rock. That's noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 [2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

Oh noooo a naughty word. However will my poor innocent mind recover. 189.217.88.120 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Resignation from the Academy

Will Smith resigned from the Academy this week. A several page article appeared in the NYT explaining the consequences of this decision and other background. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/01/movies/oscars-will-smith-slap.html. Only five people have ever been expelled from the academy in its 94-year history. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/will-smith-loses-oscar-academy-chris-rock-b2049532.html. This warrants a full explanation, and the efforts by some editors to repeatedly remove this well-sourced information is thoroughly disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The Oscars incident is being expanded far too much for this page. The entire point of WP:CONTENTFORKING with Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident is to keep only the most important information on this page, while farming the rest to the spinoff article. In that spirit, isn't including the blockquote with Smith's resignation statement and the quote of the Academy president in response not WP:UNDUE here? We lose no crucial info through this trimming. The "explanation" quote goes on that page, as the context with the slapping is clear enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Overlap between the page on the incident and Smith's resignation is standard, and greater depth into the personal consequences for smith is more warranted on Smith's bio (here) than a related spin-off page on the incident itself.

The blockquote seems perfectly appropriate. It is a quote from Smith himself on the incident, and this is the Will Smith bio. Quotes from the subject, defenses, or apologies are frequently included at such pages, particularly with regard to serious controversies.

WP:DUE means giving weight to a subject based on reliable sources. Entirely removing the section on his resignation with an argument based on claims of it being 'UNDUE" does make any sense. For example, the views represented in this NYT article (a reliable and weighty source), which evaluates the impact of the incident on Smith and his family, would belong in this page under the "Resignation" section, not a spinoff page. </nowiki>Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, are we just gonna edit war here? I'm tired of this, and I'm starting an RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I left some of your edit in but you just removed the entire section? It almost seems as if the resignation was unmentioned. Are you opposed to a separate section, the content within it, or both? FWIW I removed the Academy condemnation, and I think it does a service to the article's subject to at least quote from their apology, which we frequently do w/ public figures in controversy. ~~~~ Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

But it's not. It mentions it. n April 1, Smith tendered his resignation from the Academy. is all that this article needs to say, and the other article can say more. That's why this got split off in the first place and the AfD kept that page. To keep this one manageable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Right, but he didn't just resign out of the blue. He resigned under pressure, and it didn't constitute an official action by the Academy. Two additional sentences to clarify these points seems, well in order, but I'll make my argument below. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Will Smiths 1st born

Why is Will Smiths Firstborns name not included in the short bio? Just cause his parents got divorced doesn't mean he has any less claim on his own father. 37.111.211.48 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Because we only name notable children. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Citation error

Under film, the last citation is irrelevant to the statement made. (Ware, Asia Milia (March 28, 2022). "Jada Pinkett Smith Wins Best Baldie at the 2022 Oscars" (currently #172). I can't edit it, but it is the very last sentence under "film." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captchacatcher (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The citation has been replaced. Zoolver (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

Current: "Smith subsequently resigned from the Academy and was banned from attending academy functions, including the Oscars, for 10 years (April 8th, 2022 to April 8th, 2032)."

Please change to: "Smith subsequently resigned from the Academy and was banned from attending academy functions, including the Oscars, for 10 years, effective April 8, 2022." or simply revert this edit to remove the last part of the sentence that says "(April 8th, 2022 to April 8th, 2032)". I would say the revert is the best option since the effective date is already included in the body of the article and is unnecessary in the lead; the amount of time ("10 years") is sufficient for the lead.

2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I did the latter suggestion: removing the 2032 date because people can add 2022 + 10. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
  • This is a personal, subjective opinion and not a take grounded in policy. It's important to steer clear of edits that look like whitewashing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • I would say yes? The Academy is apparently investigating whether he will even be able to retain the Oscar. This will undoubtedly remain a significant talking point in his bio particularly in the context of the award. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
      • If it's revoked, sure. That would confirm LASTING. But what if they do nothing? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

        We can update the information in the article, as well as the lead, as needed. But prominence is already established by the body of coverage and MOS:LEAD requires we include mention of those prominent controversies, no? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

        So now we have seen real-world consequences, i.e. Smith's resignation, which is nearly unprecedented for a top-billed movie star in recent history. Sources confirm additional disciplinary action is forthcoming, but I think it's time to change the tone on this from pretending it's all a big nothing, which was never tenable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• Above, where you say "This will undoubtedly remain a significant talking point in his bio". That's speculative. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  Yes, based on reliable source coverage, not fanciful guesswork. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable sources don't tell us what will be notable tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  "But Ukraine" has nothing to do with Will Smith's bio. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Lol! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Water is wet is a less controversial statement than water is dry. The former doesn't require much commentary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Wikieditor19920 - There is definitely people using the image of the slap as a meme. (Personally, I don't get why you would deny that as it is another point you could use in support for.) Regardless, I did not seem to make myself clear at the time. My comment is that it is unclear if this incident will have drastic repercussions to his career (such as not getting a part in a movie due to the incident and the aftermath, etc.) or his life (being charged with a crime, etc.) or if the repercussions end up being trivial. Regarding "these same arguments", I have not mentioned WP:NOTNEWS, which I opposed in the discussion. I do feel that WP:RECENTISM was potential being violated here, along with possible violations of MOS:LEADREL and WP:WEIGHT, but I will reflect on that if I do end up commenting in the RfC. (Additionally, I did not mention a RfC in my prior comment, so I am a bit confused by your comment as this was a regular discussion when started.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "violate" MOS:LEADREL. There is both 1) substantial source coverage, satisfying WP:DUE, and 2) further information provided in the article. These arguments citing a lack of "weight" in the face of the widespread available RS coverage are incorrect. Smith has already faced several consequences, including 1) resignation under pressure from the Academy, 2) suspended film projects, 3) further sanctions threatened by the Academy. Anyone familiar with the sources and coverage (which I would presume of anyone who can confidently cite WP:WEIGHT) would know that. So no, it is not true that "all that we have is a meme." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: As I mentioned earlier, I feel that there is a potential violation with LEADREL, but will reflect on the policy and the article if I do end up making a comment in the RfC. I am just thinking about the emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources portion. Also, I don't believe that the Academy forced Smith to resign unless I am misunderstanding your meaning. Regarding WEIGHT, the main thing I am looking at is: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. The incident covers a significant portion of the final paragraph of the lede. Additionally, the section in the article is longer than the section that covers Smith's early career from 1985 to 1992, though that might be a discussion for later. Regardless, I hope that clears things up a bit. (For the other things, since I apparently failed to be clear enough earlier, "all that we have is a meme" is a misunderstanding of my point. The sentence was saying we have three things: the incident, the meme, and the investigation. You could say the resignation would be the fourth. Also, since you mentioned sources, could I have one for your second point as it doesn't seem to appear in the primary article and should be added there.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It's very possible I misunderstood your point, and I now see what you're saying a bit more clearly. I also think you are looking at the right policies, but it's important to make sure we're using the right criteria.

1) "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources"

Here, we have to look at how the sources are treating something. If sources are treating it as significant, with in-depth, heavy coverage and commentary, significant weight is accorded.

2) "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery."

I don't see how the current text provides undue weight. There are likely trims that could be made to existing sections, but as it stands the controversy is addressed in what seems like just enough detail.

As for suspended film projects, it appears that at least one Netflix film and another franchise entry may be on hold due to the controversy. Se here: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/will-smith-netflix-movie-1235123901-1235123901/

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you are multiple IP users now... An upgrade from just "editor", perhaps? 15 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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:

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)

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)

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)

Support. Due to the international coverage, the Academy's investigation, and Smith's own resignation, it would be a form of whitewashing if it were not included. The event will have long lasting effects on Smith's career and could define his legacy. Also one cannot mention his Oscar win in the lead without mentioning the incident on Oscar night, the coverage since, and his resignation. The One I Left (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is a defining moment for Mr. Smith and is a type of controversy that is more than a "blip" in his life. I believe that the inclusion adheres to MOS:LEAD which upon examination specifically "requires" inclusion of "prominent controversies". I believe there is no question that this would categorically fall under a "prominent controversy given the coverage, the type of event and the action taken by Mr. Smith. The action of the slap has prompted a lot of public discussion dealing with how one should respond in this type of a situation, whether his actions were right or wrong and how as a society we view this. I do not adhere to the camp that in a few months this will be forgotten. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Support. The incident has generated more notice in the form of coverage and opinion pieces (at least three substantial ones in the NYT alone) than his winning an Oscar. Barte (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now per WP:RECENTISM. It may be worth adding somewhere in the lead eventually, but we should wait and see if there's sustained coverage first; we don't insert every event into an article's lead just because it has grabbed a news cycle or two. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  There is sustained coverage, so your first sentence is based on a false presumption. In the interest of WP:AGF, I will assume you are perhaps not familiar with the body of coverage rather than flat-out misrepresenting it. Please consider referring to recent pieces in the NYT, Variety, New York Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, the list goes on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Grabbed a news cycle or two" Ah, you mean sustained coverage. You apparently are familiar with the substantial coverage on this, because you just contradicted yourself? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SUSTAINED is, like all forms of due weight, relative; the coverage of this so far is still brief, by all indications already-fading, and comes nowhere near justifying the level of significance you are trying to ascribe to it when put against the context of the rest of Smith's career. But more importantly, you need to stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion on this; weak arguments like the ones you are making here do not become stronger by repetition - if anything, the fact that you feel the need to repeat them underlines that you lack any coherent policy-based argument that could justify your position. If an argument is strong, stating it once is sufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:SUSTAINED is a policy on article inclusion in Wikipedia (or creation, rather), not where to include information and in what depth within an article. So for all your bluster about my "weak arguments," you have failed to even cite the correct policy. Further, WP:SUSTAINED was already determined to be met at the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident deletion discussion, which resulted in expedited keep.

  The only thing that matters to preserve NPOV is due weight in coverage. We're now about three weeks out, with significant attention in news sources still focused on the professional consequences for Will Smith. Nor will this controversy "disappear" from our collective memory a year from now. And if you are going to make a relativity argument, you need to state what the comparison is to. Few times has Smith been embroiled in such a high-profile controversy in his career, if at all.

  So on all fronts, these are opinionated, Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT statements masquerading as "policy arguments," with the apparent end goal being to whitewash the page. That's not how we do things. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, come on, guys—it's much simpler than all this. Smith's Oscars behaviour is a matter of public record. It's something that happened. The description of it contains no judgments, just documentation. It seems particularly inappropriate to bury it in the lede, which is intended as a summary of fuller bio details that follow. (Putting it there, if anything, seems like the kind of sensationalism to which some of you rightly object, IMHO.) Also, unlike most bio articles, this one has a "Public Image" section, for which the Oscars-event details seem especially suited. Prior to seeing this discussion, I made an edit suggesting this move. I want it to be clear I wasn't trying to go over anyone's head—but at the very least, this may give some of you a chance to see how it looks in what I, and apparently many other WP contributors, consider the most sensible, consistent, moderate approach. – AndyFielding (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Academy resignation and response

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus not to include the blockquote, and to describe the resignation in one or two paraphrased sentences. A large majority of !voters argue that including the quote would be WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE, and that the quote should be regarded similarly as a press release. Femke (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Is content (including the blockquote of Smith's resignation statement and AMPAS response) WP:DUE for this article or is it WP:UNDUE given the spinoff article? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Support inclusion of quote from resignation + academy response, Support separate subheader - Elaboration (from reliable sources such as the NYT, Variety, Rolling Stone, etc., to be clear) on Smith's resignation and the consequences for him are more warranted here than in the spinoff article. Including quotes from the subject of an article when it's from an apology or public statement regarding a controversy is a routine practice from what I've seen. A separate subsection provides space for content, such as further fallout for Smith personally, that wouldn't be appropriate for the spinoff. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The confrontation only needs one section header, not multiple, Smith's quote, likely written by his publicist, is UNDUE here, as "elaboration" belongs on Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• weak Support for inclusion of full quote -or- a shorter quote from it -or- a summary of what he said. Support including all content in the link. Although I am well aware we are not "the news", and this material is probably of relatively little significance to his overall work, as a service to readers who come to Wikipedia to find out what happened, I believe we should include more rather than less material until the event falls from public attention. We will have no deficit of editors to work on this article now and in the future when interest on this incident wanes. On the first day of the incident the article received 1.4 Million views and is still getting 200,000 views per day. [3] --David Tornheim (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Smith's resignation can easily be covered by a two sentence paragraph, there's really no need for the whole text to be added to the page. It's essentially a press release and I don't see many of those quoted in full on Wikipedia. The reader would be better served by a synopsis of the text. The fact that there's a spin-off page about the incident where this would be better accommodated makes this decision even easier. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The blockquote and section devoted this are definitely far too much. A single-sentence mention that he resigned is sufficient, maybe two - this is a tangential aspect of the larger controversy, with no reason to think it is likely to grow in significance. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose way too much detail. A mention that he resigned suffices. Not enough in-depth coverage of the statement by secondary sources to warrant inclusion. 15 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks like this section was already shortened from before, but not sure if the direct quote is still necessary, especially when taking into account WP: RECENTISM. Coolcactus04 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the inclusion of the block quotation. Lengthy quotations shouldn't be included where a paraphrase can be included without sacrificing encyclopedic content. Graham (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - A brief summary of the altercation is WP:DUE, a mention that he resigned is likewise due, but the full blockquote is undue, as is having an additional subsection. This is why we have a subarticle, where all the details can be included. The top level article does not need this level of detail, and I think the desire to include it is an instance of WP:RECENTISM. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unnecessary and apologetic, which is not the purpose of an encylopedia which aims to provide a neutral view to facts. A full blockquote is undue. Gorebath (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment this CfD is rather misleadingly presented as a binary (yes, include everything including a block quote text or no don't mention it at all). Yes The resignation can be mentioned in the preceding paragraph as a result of the slapping incident, but no it should not include Smith's block quote, nor David Rubin's immediate response nor any other relatively minute details from the news of the day. Note WP:RECENTISM in the Career section, generally increasing in level of detail over time, with the slap incident given weight roughly equal to his entire 1993–1997 career (which, between Independence Day and Men in Black probably generated a lot of press that has been forgotten). Per WP:PROPORTION and WP:VNOTSUFF, minor details can be omitted and/or presented in another article, e.g. the slap-incident spin-off. Wikipedia is not the tome of all that ever was. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

There is no dispute about the degree of reliable source coverage on this, which is substantial. There is no dispute that there are serious consequences for Smith regarding this incident. There is no dispute that this has had a significant impact on his career. The continual efforts to remove or trim mention of the controversy is getting a bit tedious, IMO.

If we're going to cite WP:DUE, please make reference to the body of sources. WP:DUE is not a standalone policy meant to impose subjective editorial judgment. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Moving mention of the personal consequences for Smith of the incident to the spinoff page, which users also attempted (and failed) to delete, seems misguided. This is the Smith bio, and this is where the impact on Smith in the context of his life and career should be addressed in greater detail. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think we can do without the "resignation" subheader. It's probably too close to the type of negative subheader we want to avoid. The same content can exist under the "confrontation" label. ~~~~ Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Animation482 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)The police can’t arrest Will Smith. He was one of the greatest actors I knew.

Note A gaggle of editors are arguing for a double standard here -- that we ignore reliable source cover and significance to a subject's career and "take their word for it" that this shouldn't matter. Not only do they suggest violating WP:DUE, they also suggest that we write a "one sentence paragraph." A paragraph is on average 3-4 sentences. There is a continual, disruptive effort to censor this page and relegate any content covering the controversy to a footnote or to remove it entirely. Sensible editors will reject this misguided agenda. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

Memoir

I might have accidentally passed it in the article but, if it’s truly not there, I’d recommend mentioning his memoir from https://willthebook.com/ GamerKlim9716 (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

will smith starred in six degrees of seperartion 1993 173.63.130.76 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You're correct and its listed here: Will_Smith_filmography#Film - FlightTime (open channel) 21:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James Mackenzie (actor) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2022

Add 3 children Jaden Smith, Willow Smith, Trey Smith. As it's stated 3 children including Willow and Jaden, it appears the third child, his firstborn son, is irrelevant. Riguy6969 (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Trey is already named in the article. See the Personal Life section RudolfRed (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Done (and sorted into birth order). Willard Carroll Smith III is a known by the nickname "Trey" (which is often used for someone whose name includes the generational ordinal suffix "III"). Martin Kealey (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Change Caroline Bright to Carolyn Elaine Bright. His parents got married in 1966. Jelahco (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2023

The request is to change the 6th paragraph of the "Music" header from starting as on July 24, 2020, Smith released the single "Cabin Fever"... to starting as Jaden was managed by Will Smith's management company, Westbrook Entertainment, until March 2019 when Three Six Zero, an established management firm acquired Westbrook. Following the acquisition, on July 24, 2020, Smith released the single "Cabin Fever"... Armdaccount (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

What is the published reference to support that? Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Religious.

we heard that he converted to Islam? Is that right? 105.41.234.143 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I dunno. How about you find the answer yourself. Shearonink (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

He has stated that he has read the Holy Qur'an but I have not found anything solid to say he has reverted as of yet. Rasojp (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)