Talk:Will Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Will Smith article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2


Archive
Archives
Discussions 2006 archived
Archive
Archives
Discussions 2007 archived


Contents

[edit] Triple threat

"He is one of the few personalities in showbusiness who has enjoyed success in the three major entertainment media in the US; movies, television and the music industry."

I've heard this referred to as a "triple threat". Is this an industry term, can anyone corroborate this?

Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 06:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who can do three things well is can be called a triple threat, no matter what those three things are. For instance, Jennifer Lopez is often called a triple threat because of her dancing, singing and acting abilities, and so on. -- Jalabi99 10:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Acting abilities? this must be a different JLo.... Myself0101 (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Will Smith solves a 3x3x3 cube in 55 seconds. http://www.geekarmy.com/cool/Will-Smith-Rubix-Cube.html 72.241.182.49 11:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not in 55 seconds. At the beginning you can hear the woman say "two minutes" and also, if you look at the cube he already has the F2L (which is the lengthiest stage) completed at that point. --L33tmaster (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The "two minutes" the woman said sounded like it was the time limit Will was given to solve the cube. Dibol (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether that was the time limit or not, he already had the F2L (first two layers) solved at that point. Which means the cube wasn't fully scrambled when he started. Look at the video again, you'll see that two rows (the bottom and middle) are already finished when he starts. --L33tmaster (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly grammar

Since the article's locked and I have no account, I'd like to recommend a change from this clumsy phrase: In the television work Smith has done, his most notable role was the role of William "Will" Smith ... to this slightly cleaner one: Smith's most notable television role was that of William "Will" Smith ... 86.143.198.116 23:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The reason it is uneditable is because of the vandals that have been ruining the article. Anyway it's fixed now. If you find another bad grammar you should just let us know. TheBlazikenMaster 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals might be able to help this page, not harm it. I'm being facetious, but this is a poorly written entry. It repeats information over and over, the grammar is horrible and ... it repeats information over and over. :) I suggest someone who has the power to edit this thing read it from top to bottom out loud. You'll see what I mean.

No you're wrong, vandals are those that damage the page. Vandals isn't a word for unregistered users in general, there are useful unregistered users out there. If someone edits articles to help it, you can't call that person a vandal. But you are right that there are a lot of good unregistered editors on Wikipedia. Just tell what needs fixing, and use {{editprotected}} template. It's protected because vandalism is common here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

==Scientology? == Some tabloids claim that Will and his wife are the followers of Scientology, however, I can't find anyone who'd confirm that. They aren't on any lists of scientologist ... Does anybody have any more information? 213.161.8.138 09:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. He claims he's not a member of the church. I just added the info to the article Elhector 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out http://thesuperficial.com/2008/01/will_smith_recruits_for_scient.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.24.32.38 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Will Smith has come out regarding being a scientologist. His religious belief status needs to be updated with proper notation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga1lyons (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He said he respects it, he's not a member of the church. IronCrow (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] W. S. really does redirect to this page.

Don't believe me? See for yourself. If you wanna remove it fine, but please don't just revert me, and keep the redirect to this page, if you wanna remove the note, please change the redirect. We already have enough hidden messages, I don't want to have to put one because of this redirect. TheBlazikenMaster 13:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems it doesn't anymore. It goes to a disambiguation page now looks like. Good day (this reply is probably not even necessary at this point in time lol) ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's because I added this comment several months ago. Dude, look at the timestamp. It's there for a reason. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously. That's why I said it isn't necessary at this point in time, you don't have to give me a stern talking to, gosh. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on?

what's going on with this article? 2 infoboxes which differ on the birthday? what the hell? Sai2020 05:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, strange indeed. I have something to do now, so if it won't be fixed in 2008 I will try to fix it by then. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler Controversy

on the Will Smith article, you put all this info and called it a scandal. I would cite this as non-neutrality. It is not a "scandal" - it's media blowing things out of proportion and trying to shape the public's view of Will Smith really. Every press conference he has ever had is not on the article and neither is it for other actors and famous persons. You seem to want to discredit Will Smith too for some reason and really, it's not cool to do that to any person or article.

  • I agree. It's not a scandal; it's a media flap. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I have just now deleted the whole section "Hitler scandal" because the decision to include this so called "scandal" or controversy or whatever you want to call it is itself non-neutral. There is not one press conference or comment of Will Smith's listed in his article, so I find it hard to believe that this purposeful media-twist bares the most importance about Will Smith. It's really a shame though how this stuff happens, just for no reason.

  • Deleting isn't the way to handle it. I described the reporter's role, i.e., attributing to Smith the view that 'everyone is basically good'. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And finally, this "scandal" is not properly placed in the Personal Life section of the article. Nor does it fit in the Career or any other section. It simply doesn't have a place in Will Smith, the article. Nor would you or anyone else like it if someone wrote in your autobiography of sorts that you said some insignificant statement that some people misconstrued to haunt you for the rest of your life. I know I wouldn't, and I've said some things at times that I had to correct right away for fear of misinterpretation, but it doesn't mean I have to be hassled about it forever now. Will they be asking Will Smith, "Are you an anti-Semite?" If they do, then you can really see how low the media will sink to get a story. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed: it wasn't an aspect of his personal life. It was an interview with a reporter. Should we create a "media relations" section for him? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is 808,000 Google hits.[1] The whole story has world wide coverage. The Wikipedia is no place for censorship. See Mel Gibson DUI incident.
I don't rely on the word "scandal". I will use "controversy" instead.
Every press conference he has ever had is not on the article Every event which has world wide coverage should be included to the Wikipedia.
You seem to want to discredit Will Smith too for some reason. No. I am just interested in such controversies.
It simply doesn't have a place in Will Smith, the article. I am sorry, but there has to be some place and I again don't rely on the Personal Life section.
Nor would you or anyone else like it if someone wrote in your autobiography of sorts that you said some insignificant statement that some people misconstrued to haunt you for the rest of your life. Mr. Smith has apologized and his apology was accepted. No reason to hide what happened.
Will they be asking Will Smith, "Are you an anti-Semite?" No, since the whole story has already ended.
—V. Z. Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 19:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link available to the "apology"/"clarification"? I noticed that some reports are calling it an apology and others calling it a clarification. A reference to the full statement would be good so the full context of the "response" can be obtained. -- Tony G 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we certainly hope so V.Z.! I guess you like to quote a lot but that's alright. You make some good agreeable points. I was only worried that people reading about Will Smith on Wikipedia would be like in their heads, "Is Will Smith anti-Semitic? I don't like this guy" just because of some media coverage that only seems to exist because of a media twist. That's what I meant about the neutrality. And yes controversy is definitely a better word if the story must be included. Not hide anything, but I just wanted that his image isn't inappropriately, unnecessarily, and baseless-ly damaged, if that makes sense. take care, and happy New Year
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading stories like this for decades. You have to consider what part is the reporter adding his own evaluations vs. what part is Will Smith expressing himself. Here's the relevant section from the article:

Smart, friendly and funny, you have to wonder if anything ever upsets Will Smith's good nature.
"Well, if I understand the problem then I don't get annoyed," he explained. "People driving past in the car and giving me the finger annoys my wife but it's because they think you did something to them.
"They think you're driving too slow and keeping them from getting to their daughter's birthday party, or you cut them off and didn't see."
Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.
"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today'," said Will. "I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.
"I wake up every day full of hope, positive that every day is going to be better than yesterday. And I'm looking to infect people with my positivity. I think I can start an epidemic."

You see how the reporter (1) backs up his own opinion of Smith's 'good nature' with an actual quote from Smith - meant to illustrate the reporter's evaluation. This is followed by (2) the reporter putting words into Smith's mouth, i.e., the belief that 'everyone is basically good'. The back up for this is Smith's quote about Hitler.

Perhaps we should add that Smith said he was angry about being misinterpreted. [2] --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I moved the Hitler Controversy "up" from a sub-subheading to a subheading.
  • Also, I attempted to clarify that it was the reporter's observation that sparked the flap. Smith never said "everyone is basically good", which the ADL so strongly objected to. IMHO the reporter put words in his mouth. The reporter was following a pattern of "observation and illustration". The last such instance was the "basically good ... Hitler" thing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He is an amazing actor. He has won 45 awards in the music category and 65 awards in the acting category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.195.71 (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I really have to ask if this section is really necessary. Concidering the "controversy" that surrounded this comment seemed to last a manner of days. It was written off immediate as a misquotation. Really, controversies like these should only be added to an actors' page if it has a long term affect on his career. Shown from this, I am Legend was boycotted by the Jewish for a whooping three days before it was called off. It was a misquotation, so there really is no need for a section, let alone three paragraphs worth of it. Lionheart08 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Lionheart08. Why is this part of the article? I'll tell you why. Someone who doesn't like Smith very much has put this here in the first place. And others who also don't like Smith for whatever reason are keeping it here. This goes against Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It's not that the story needs to be hidden from the public; trust me it's all over the internet as these things are. We're just saying it doesn't need to be on his Wikipedia article. It has no lasting effect, like Lionheart08 mentioned and was a mess-up on the reporter's part, nothing to do with Smith's beliefs about Hitler - we all know he is one of the worst of history.
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm collecting anecdotes like this for an article on media flaps, that is, disturbances caused by reporting - rather than real events which are simply reported.

The reporter caused a stir by putting words in Will Smith's mouth. Smith then "clarified his remarks" in a way that made it quite clear that the reporter was the one whose idea was being presented; the reporter made his own interpretation and falsely attributed it to Smith.

The way Smith handled the mistake (or ethical lapse?) of the reporter shows something of his character. "Don't mess with Will", basically. So it's relevant: it shows how Will Smith respond to inaccurate press coverage.

When I get enough of these for an article, I'm going to write about the general phenomenon of reporters who stir things up like this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The section clearly suffers from recentism and to dedicate a whole section to it is undue weight. This is more Wikinews material than encyclopedic stuff. Wikinews was made for things that have short bursts of coverage but no long term historical or encyclopedic importance. This issue isn't going to be relevant several months from now. So unless it has a significant impact on his career, it really doesn't warrant a section. About 1/4 of this biography (excluding the lead-in) is dedicated to a misunderstanding that was settled after a grand total of 3 days! Spellcast (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
While I don't mind that it's no longer in the article, what he said about Hitler needing some "reprogramming" does seem to indicate that he's now a scientologist. Should he be catgorised as one?Ticklemygrits (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, he should only be categorised as a Scientologist if he explicitly identifies as one. Spellcast (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The man in black won, the media (World Entertainment News Network) lost: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jlc94tbWgxe5R-2CZ2pkbCN3PILwD8UVSUKO0 That media flap is over with. --To bigbye (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's up with the troll warning?

I don't remember any trolling going on here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it due to will smith being a racist 4chan meme, included in the WOLL SMOTH, I am legend, and bel-air, memes Prophet0014 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How is it racist?131.123.68.50 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not racist. Will Smith is the only black guy 4chan doesn't hate. That said, he is a meme, and you can expect a limited amount of trolling here. 72.150.100.43 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The caption I added to the image Time 100 Will Smith c.jpg

Can I ask what was wrong with it? Why was it reverted? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was unnecessary. --Maycomb County (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right, it was way too obvious. Even to those that don't know him. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

is Mr. Smith a scientology freak or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.191.154 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's covered on the page. DanTheShrew (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you an anonymous freak? --To bigbye (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.84.1.71 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PICTURE

I just wanted to add...

The current picture is ridiculous. And no, I dont have a better one; if I did I would replace the current one. Freeth (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Current picture is garbage. Change it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't you use the I,Robot picture from that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.5.155 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian

In response to this edit, Category:American Christians shouldn't be added unless anyone can give a reliable source. There's nothing in the article to suggest it and I couldn't find an interview or anything where he identifies as one. So unless anyone gives a reference, it should be removed for now. Spellcast (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

I removed the bit about his ethnicity. If anyone can find a source for it, especially on him being part Native American, just add it back in. IMDB isn't a reliable source since it's a user edited site. Spellcast (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually IMDB is a reliable sources it goes through a series of editors not just one. It's more secure then wikipedia in some ways. For a number of things a source must be stated in order for it to be put up. Also then how we gonna find more on his ethnicity that's hard as hell and it's kinda wrong to just ignore things like that. Also if his Native American heritage is removed then his African American heritage should be removed as well. Since that isn't sourced either.Mcelite (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

[edit] Religion

I added some about Smith's religious beliefs, as can be viewed in this article - I hope this works, I'm a newb to properly editing Wikipedia articles. Let me know if I got anything wrong. Fatzebra (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job this clears things up about his religion. Hopefully other issues can be resolved as well.Mcelite (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

[edit] The Last Pharaoh

Hey everyone. nice page. anyone hear about this.... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/great_pharaohs_of_egypt/news/1702885/

Says Will Smith is possibly lined up to play Taharqa in a film called The Last Pharaoh. No release date or anything tho. Just thought u all should know. HOLLA Scott Free (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where do the Woll Smoth vandals keep coming from?

I mean seriously, that Woll Smoth vandalism is as common as the false assumptions of Smith's death used to be before I added that hidden message (and believe me I have no plans on removing it.), how can we tack those vandals down? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a variety of IPs and users ... I don't think there is any block that can be put in place. We might consider asking Cluebot to recognize "Woll Smoth" as a trigger phrase, because that makes the removal automatic. Since it's confined to one article, his owner might not be happy about that.Kww (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Great idea, it should be added to a blacklist, it isn't used anywhere on the mainspace. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who's is family?

There is no refernce to is family in the personal life section, ie has he got any brothers or sisters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.5.155 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsuitable reference / request for help

The last paragraph in the Scientology section says that Smith is funding the construction of a Scientology school. The citation listed is a dead link, and it also has Chanology in the site name, making it very, very suspect. I didn't want to take it down, because it might be true. Can anyone verify whether he's actually funding the construction of this school? If this gets no replies, and if my research comes up with nothing, I'll delete the sentence and the citation. Let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. Benjamin.s.quigley (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Beat you to it. It's gone.Kww (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, look at the very next topic, where someone provided this reference. (http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/05/19/Will_Smiths_new_private_school_to_teach_Scientology) Should we put it back now? Is this the same thing? Benjamin.s.quigley (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Will Smith's new private school to teach Scientology

An interesting development. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Another WP:RS/WP:V source. Cirt (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Another. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)