Jump to content

Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

specified that she has alopecia areata (spot baldness)

she does not suffer from "common baldness". she did not shave her head due to a female-pattern baldness (i.e. a receding hairline). 2601:647:8481:B000:EC97:C323:ED5F:8001 (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Political aspects

I think the political section on this ought to be removed. A lot of primary (MTG and Shapiro tweets, for example) and unreliable sources (see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, among others). Seems to be a case of needless point-scoring here. - - QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded here, I have removed these. I am aware that some were more reliably-sourced, but this section seemed cherry-picked and too focused on US internal politics - especially for a global encyclopedia. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Other jokes to be referenced?

Should we reference other comments made at the ceremony at their expense as background, the most pertinant one being Regina Hall's comment about their "open marriage" or is that too disconnected to warrant inclusion? Apache287 (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they're quite relevant to the slapping incident. — Golden call me maybe? 19:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Relevant to the extent that one joke "offended" Smith and threw him into an uproar; the other joke caused no concern in him. Arguably, a joke about "other men sleeping with your wife" is more -- um, "offensive" -- than "geez, you decided to wear your hair short". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
What joke you would find more offensive isn't relevant. People have made jokes about Will Smith to his face dozens, if not hundreds of times. They're not really relevant here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Uh ... yeah, I am sure that over the past 30, 40, 50 years ... People have made jokes about Will Smith to his face dozens, if not hundreds of times. They're not really relevant here. However, this particular (first) joke was made at this particular event, just prior to this particular (second) joke "offending" him, and causing this particular reaction. Do you see the difference? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Unless reliable sources mention them in relation to the incident, other jokes should not be mentioned. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It has been brought up by at least The Guardian as far as I know (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/mar/28/dont-mention-that-slap-why-no-one-was-talking-about-will-smith-and-chris-rock-at-the-oscars-after-party). Might be worth mentioning as a one liner in the reaction section? Apache287 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As I indicated above, those other jokes are relevant. And here are some of the many sources. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • "“If anything, Regina Hall’s joke about Will and Jada earlier in the evening (which hinted at their open marriage) was in way worse taste,” the source said, while adding that Rock did not have a mark on his face from the slap." Source: [1]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "“Once he saw Jada’s reaction, the hurt and her rolling her eyes, he flipped,” the insider adds. “All the built up anger Will has had over the jokes about his open marriage, even host Regina Hall’s earlier joke aimed at Jada giving him a pass, it all took its toll. Chris’ jab sent him over the edge.”" Source: [2]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "When discussing the dustup on The View, Goldberg noted that the Hollywood couple has been the subject of comedians’ material in the past. As recent as the 2022 Academy Awards telecast, Regina Hall quipped about the couple’s rumored open marriage." Source: [3]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "(Interestingly enough, when Regina Hall made a joke about Will and Jada reportedly having an open marriage earlier in the show, Jada laughed out loud while Will looked a bit uncomfortable—but remained in his seat.)" Source: [4]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Page title

Separate to the notability issue: Is this the best title for the page? "Altercation" very much seems to be downplaying the nature of Will Smith's actions. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "Assault" is better. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm pleased the name was changed. Just thought I'd mention that this issue was brought up on Talk:94th Academy Awards, and editors seemed to think that we couldn't call this an "assault", as per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, because nobody has pressed charges. Personally, I don't think that's true, as we are not saying he was charged with assault in the title, but I wonder what other editors who are more versed in Wikipedia policy think of this. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Here is a legal analysis of whether or not an "assault" -- and/or a "battery" -- occurred between Smith and Rock at the Oscars ceremony: Slapping Chris Rock Could Cost Will Smith More Than His Oscar. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Local governments around the globe don't get to veto reality -- whether it's a 2018 Saudi consulate, or 1988 Tienanmen Square, or 1955 Mississippi, local authorities and reliable sources often disagree. RSes do characterize this as assault, but it doesn't appear to be COMMON. Feoffer (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Assault" is definitely not in the common name, as almost no news or media headlines are referring to it as such. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  • "Assault" is also a legal term so we probably can't say there was an assault unless Smith is convicted of assault(which he won't be as Rock is not pressing charges). 331dot (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "Altercation" by definition is the wrong word as it implies that Rock was actively involved. "Attack" is a more general form which does not imply the Rock and Smith were fighting together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.227.235 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Rock was involved, he instigated it. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I always understood altercation to mean a simultaneous engagement, usually a verbal one. So it drew my attention as the wrong word for it. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Slap does seem to be the most used term, but I'm not sure exactly how to word that in the title. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Face spanking? No. Probably not. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Will Smith slapping incident? Feoffer (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe Will Smith Oscars slap? Or Will Smith-Chris Rock Oscars slap? ––FormalDude talk 02:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "Altercation" is absolutely the wrong word, assault is better. Slap might be better still. We also could just do "Will Smith and the 94th Academy Awards", as his behavior after the slap is also part of the scope. Feoffer (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Will Smith-Chris Rock slapping incident seems fine with me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with altercation exactly? Kire1975 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"altercation" is defined as "a loud argument or disagreement" by Cambridge Dictionary. There was no "argument" or "disagreement" during the whole ordeal. It was a single slap followed by shouting by one side. — Golden call me maybe? 10:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Also may I ask why you moved the page to a completely new name with the rationale "consensus not yet reached on talk page, premature edit". There was no consensus for the version you've implemented either. — Golden call me maybe? 11:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I've restored. Kire1975 -- what's wrong with the title of the article as you found it? Many editors support it and you haven't actually stated any objection. Feoffer (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
At the time you moved the title 'per talk', exactly one person had expressed full support for the change. That's not consensus. No reasons were given. Will Smith was noisy when he yelled "Get my wife's name out of your fucking mouth." It is an ongoing dispute and many people are angry about it. There's nothing wrong with altercation according to Golden's definition. Kire1975 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I like "incident" far better than "altercation". The incident was the slapping itself - on its own, I don't think that a slap is an altercation, although if it is, saying "slapping altercation" is probably redundant. "Slapping incident" is most clear, and closest to COMMONNAME - I think it should be moved back to that name. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This wasn't notable for being a disagreement, it was notable for violence. Feoffer (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I dunno. The word "slap" seems too mild and "white-washing". It seems slight and down-playing of the incident. What about "strike"? Not perfect. But the word "strike" really does not send an implication of the hit being either weak or strong (forceful or not). I think "slap" implies a weak strike. "Punch" or similar implies a strong strike. But, "strike" seems neutral. Yet, not perfect. Or, "hit"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
"Slap" seems to be WP:COMMONNAME - it's by far the most common word used in news articles. This Guardian article even uses the full phrase "Will Smith slap incident" in its headline. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Surely the most straightforward title would be Will Smith slap of Chris Rock.--Pharos (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine moving it to Will Smith slap of Chris Rock. But the current title, (Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident) is also fine with me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think Pharos' title should be used. The current tile has some issues. "Will Smith–Chris Rock" tells you that there was a slapping incident involving the two. However, it doesn't tell you who slapped who, and leaves open the possibility that both men were slapping each other. "Will Smith slap of Chris Rock" makes the perpretrator and victim quite clear. 24.38.250.3 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
"Will Smith slap of Chris Rock" doesn't sound very encyclopaedic to me. Moreover, this article is about the incident of the slapping and the surrounding context, not *just* the action of the slap, so including "incident" in some form makes the most sense. Considering that newspaper headlines have been referring to the "Will Smith slap incident" then the current title works well in my opinion. If we do move it away from "incident", then "slapping" is probably better than "slap" because it a "slapping" sounds more like it denotes an incident, and not just the action of the particular strike. So an option would be Will Smith slapping of Chris Rock. I would say add "2022" on the front of that, but in fairness I don't think there are any other notable slappings that come under that description so WP:CONCISE applies... BlackholeWA (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed "incident" really does seem like a good word, since the surrounding contexts ("Keep my wife's name"...) are integral, as opposed to supplemental. Feoffer (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait a few weeks. Page (re)titling needs to consider quality sources, and quality sources are from a distant perspective, both time and space. 3 weeks is good to ensure passage of at least one magazine cycle. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath II

Also worth adding just after the line about Smith being asked to leave that Whoopi Goldberg noted first-time Oscar event producer Will Packer took the decision to carry on with the ceremony in this interview. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended commentary in "Incident"

The "transcription" of the incident is rather silly, imo. For example: "Rock: It's—that was a—that was a nice one! Okay. I'm out here— [he is interrupted by something he sees] uh oh–Richar…"; "Rock: Oh, wow! Wow! [shakes head and clicks tongue] Will Smith just smacked the shit out of me. [audience laughs] Di–" (emphasis added). I suggest removal of these annotations. Ovinus (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue the audience laughing is the only relevant tag. "Shakes head and clicks tongue" is trivial. I've watched the clip probably 20 times by now and I've never noticed Chris Rock clicking his tongue until just now. Askarion 💬●✒️ 12:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we mention Jaden Smith's tweet?

Other people who are much less notable than him have their tweets shown in the reactions and responses section. Fijipedia (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If the tweet has actually been covered in news/publications (not just pulling the tweet from Twitter), given that much of the reason for this article is the reaction to the incident thereafter, I say go ahead and mention it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories

I'm not sure that all of the categories that it's in are appropriate and wanted some input. I know that many people have discussed chivalry and masculinity while talking about this, but it definitely seems like a stretch to put it in Category:Chivalry and Category:Masculinity. Also, I question its inclusion in Category:2022 in American cinema as the connection to cinema is indirect. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Smiths past comments?

I know there was a previous sentence about how Will Smith has joked about another individuals baldness that was removed due to not having a good fit plus additional footage of the couple in 2010 on the Spanish talk show, El Hormiguero shows Smith telling the host "Pablo be careful with the words you use for my wife, okay" while raising his hand towards the presenter, who had been complimenting Pinkett Smiths career and appearance. Should they be included in a separate section or bump off of the Smiths apology? Leaky.Solar (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources are provided that bring them up in relation to the slap, I don't think that it's relevant enough for us to include them. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll link articles that have brought up his past comments actions. New York Post[1] and The News International[2] for the talk show. And his past bald joke in 1991 from the Rolling Stone[3] and the Hindustan Times [4] Not the best sources and not widespread reporting though.Leaky.Solar (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The 1991 bald joke feels really out of place here (aka UNDUE). Smith was 23 and it got zero contemporary coverage. Feoffer (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/will-smiths-resurfaced-warning-to-tv-host-who-flattered-jada-be-careful/
  2. ^ https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/945933-will-smiths-old-video-slapping-spanish-tv-host-resurfaces-after-oscars-punch
  3. ^ https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-news/will-smith-arsenio-hall-john-b-williams-bald-joke-viral-clip-slap-1329729/
  4. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/when-will-smith-made-fun-of-a-bald-man-on-tv-said-these-are-jokes-come-on-watch-video-101648717044598.html

Some additional points likely worthy of note

Cheers! BD2412 T 19:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Daniel went on to make a meaningful comment, about not knowing himself whether he was the butt of a joke in progress at these ceremonies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Rock and Pinkett Smith respond

It makes sense to include the response of these two and not just Will. Why are you reverting? Please explain yourself @Nyescum:. UserTwoSix (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Chris didn't really respond yet, and the Jada mention could of been about anything. What specifically is she healing from? You can't assume. --Nyescum (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
At minimum the Pinkett Smith image and Rock's non-comment comment aren't worthy of lede. Feoffer (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Asked to leave

I feel it's imperative that it's stated in the article, the general public did not know Smith was asked to leave, until on the 30th. That changes the conversation, as before we knew this, almost every discussion included someone asking why he was not removed.Daleylife (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't removed. Correct? He was "asked" -- not ordered -- to leave; he refused; and the Academy let him get away with his hissy fit. The new narrative actually sounds a lot worse than the original understanding (i.e., that he was never asked to leave at all). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
We don't actually know that he was asked to leave; the Academy claimed that he was. BD2412 T 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the Academy's claim is: "We didn't ask -- much less, order -- Smith (himself) to leave ... but we did (gently) recommend it through his publicist / manager". That's what I have been reading / seeing. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
That seems to be correct: Academy President David Rubin and CEO Dawn Hudson broached the idea of Smith leaving with a representative of the actor, sources told Deadline, but according to Deadline, Smith told his rep, “I want to make this right, I want to stay and apologize.” (Emphasis mine.) The A.V. Club also has an article about the confusing claims. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

What…

This is really an article? I get the Oscars itself being an article and this topic being covered in it, but to be its own article? This ain’t it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.214.156 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There was an Articles for Deletion discussion that resulted in keep. This event has received extensive coverage beyond that of the ceremony itself. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
When we make an article on something, that doesn't mean we think it's "important". Sometimes we make an article just so 'unimportant' material won't take up too much space in a more important article. We wouldn't want Smith's entire biography to be just about this one 15-second incident, and we also wouldn't want it at the Awards page, taking focus off the larger event. So we make a "sub-article" to host all the details about an admittedly somewhat-trivial event -- that way those more important page can just briefly summarize something and then link readers to this article if they want to know more. Feoffer (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I would advise reading the closing of the AfD discussion to see why it wasn't deleted. If you disagree with the decision, then consider making a new AfD after things have calmed down. If you do so, read the entire prior discussion so that you are prepared. (Alternatively, I could recommend just avoiding this article if you feel that it is a problem. Not everyone agrees with all of the articles on the Wiki and that is okay.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Need recent image of Pinkett Smith

The article could really benefit from a more recent image of Pinkett Smith showing her current hairstyle. Feoffer (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We could try to add {{Photo requested}} to either this talk page, the Pinkett Smith article's talk page, or both to see if a photograph with the proper licensing can be obtained. However, given the circumstances, it likely isn't something that will work and could cause more trouble than not. Likely the only thing to do is wait and hope that a photograph with the appropriate licensing is made available in the next few years. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Add reactions from US representatives

Two notable reactions are missing:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna21787

Notable is that they are US representatives, one suffers from alopecia, and that they later walked back their statements. 2600:1012:B04C:CDEA:F095:38B7:226B:B0E6 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Reactions

I think there should be a more detailed, fleshed-out "reactions" section about the police / criminal investigating authorities. They pretty much said "oh, well, Rock does not want to file a report, so we're off the hook ... nothing to see here". Which is meaningless and misleading (and self-serving). If a crime occurs, the police have a duty to investigate it, whether or not the victim wants them to do so. The police are hoping to sweep the incident under the carpet, and just hope that it goes away. I think that the criminal element (i.e., police action/inaction) will be scrutinized heavily in the aftermath. Regardless, it's an important facet of the narrative. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't really seem to be a neutral point of view. While the police do have the power to be involved without the victim pressing charges, it is extremely rare fot them to do so for a single slap. I have not seen anyone criticize the police for respecting Rock's wishes for not pressing charges. It really seems like you're trying to push your own personal opinions into the article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Not true. It's an important facet to the narrative of the story. And, just you watch, it will become even more important over the next few days/weeks as this incident gets analyzed and critiqued over and over again by TV pundits, media, talking heads, legal experts, police experts, public safety experts, etc. This was not just a "slap" ... it was an assault ... it was broadcast live on TV with millions of people watching ... at one of the (supposedly) most elegant and classy events in the world. So, no, it's not as if I walked up to my room-mate in the living room and gave him a slight slap, for whatever reason. Regardless ... police do not need a victim's "consent" to press charges ... or, at the very least, to investigate whether a crime occurred. The police were caught with their pants down; they will regret their inaction; and they will offer lots of "word-salad" to justify their errors. Yeah, that's my personal opinion. (And anyone else that has two eyes.) Regardless, it's an important part of the narrative. And they are going to try to "squirm" their way out of it. Already, a lot of the public has been "sold" on this false narrative that the LAPD "needs" Rock's permission to investigate a crime. That's laughable. And, yet, people fell for their misleading (self-serving) "legal analysis" of their duties and obligations. LOL. Similar -- and common -- scenario: husband "slaps" wife; police show up; wife says "oh, no, don't arrest him, he didn't do anything, it was my fault" ( etc., etc., etc.,) ... the police have no obligation to either arrest or at least investigate? C'mon. In fact, due to this very abuse (in domestic situations), I believe that they -- the police -- are required to arrest/intervene/act/investigate. I assume that the LAPD know that it's 2022 ... and not 1942 or some such. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore ... let's say that this was not Will Smith. It was some lowly waiter or bus-boy (or whatever) who works at the Oscars. In the middle of the ceremony, he walks up to Rock and "slaps" him ... then drops the f-bomb live on TV a few times. The Academy would not have him removed immediately? And prosecuted? The police would not arrest him for assault, breach of peace, etc.? C'mon. Also, news flash, water is wet. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
First of all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Second of all, legal experts have already said that it the right legal decision to not further investigate the crime as Rock did not want to press charges. [5][6]. So please, unless you find actual reliable sources criticizing the police for this and can actually write from a neutral point of view, just drop it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
We need to be very careful not to push our own personal points of view. If we feel strongly, that's a sign we should be extra cautious.... That said, many notable voices have criticized the lack of arrest, and it makes sense to me to coalesce them. Feoffer (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Feoffer Jim Carrey is really the only person I see complaining about the lack of an arrest, and that is far out weighed by the legal experts saying that not arresting him unless Rock decides to press charges. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I spoke too soon -- upon searching for notable voices, I also noticed that it looks like it's just Carrey. Feoffer (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

To User:JDDJS - (1) There are plenty of neutral, reliable sources criticizing the inaction of the police / the lack of arrest / the double standard of justice for rich celebrities. (2) Your two "legal experts" citations are not the be-all-and-the-end-all, whose opinion dispositively resolves and closes the issue. It's obviously an issue about which reasonable minds can offer differeing legal opinions. (3) Perhaps you should just "drop it"? No? As you ordered me to do so. If I read your comment correctly. Hmmmmm ... let me go check, just to be sure. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • "Another topic is whether the police will be involved. The Academy could decide to press charges against Smith, even though Rock declined to do file a police report after being contacted by the LAPD on Sunday night. With Smith looking at up to six months in jail and a $100,000 fine if found guilty on a misdemeanor charge of assault, Rock actor has up to six months from Sunday’s slapping to change his mind on filing a police report." Source: [7]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "News of celebrities in trouble has been a fixture in LA since Hollywood's early days, and questions frequently arise about whether the rich and powerful receive a different brand of justice. “The celebrity thing is coming into play, unfortunately,” said former LA District Attorney Steve Cooley. “If some Joe Blow committed this act in front a police officer, would he would be able to walk away from it? Probably not.” If Smith is not charged, it could imperil the justice system's credibility, said Jody Armour, a law professor at the University of Southern California. “How can what appears to be an obvious criminal act committed in the open publicly not result in any criminal consequences?" Armour asked. "Do different standards apply to celebrities and noncelebrities? Apparently, we seem to all recognize that is the case. But what does that recognition say to us about the legitimacy and credibility of our criminal justice system?” While the famous can use their status to influence decision-makers, their fame can work against them if the prosecutor decides to make an example of a crime by someone well-known. “I would surprised if the city attorney does not seriously consider it because it was so public," said Alison Triessl, a criminal defense lawyer who has handled many misdemeanor battery cases. “Are they sending the wrong message if they don’t prosecute him?” Triessl said there’s no question a crime was committed, and there’s no need for the victim to file a report. Charges are routinely brought in domestic violence cases without cooperation from the victim because the crime is against the state for violating its penal code. “It sends a message that you can commit a crime and you won’t be punished," she said. "This was a very wrong message.”" Source: [8]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "As far as we're aware, as yet Chris Rock has not contacted police about the incident. That, however, does not rule out prosecutors reviewing the evidence (of which there is clearly an abundance) and deciding to file charges. There is no requirement in California for a victim to file a police complaint for prosecutors to take action against a suspected assailant." Source: [9]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "Of the two men in the discussion, only one of them broke the law at the Oscars and got away with it because the LAPD stood back and let it happen. The question then is: What would happen if Chris Rock changed his mind? According to Aron Solomon, chief legal analyst for Esquire Digital: “The question that millions of people are asking this morning is whether Will Smith’s actions legally constituted assault and battery. While the Oscars are broadcast to a massive audience around the world, they are held in California, where assault and battery are, by statute, two different crimes. It is clear that what happened at the Oscars was an assault under the California statutory definition.” In a conversation with HOLA! USA, Solomon revealed Will Smith could have been immediately arrested by the LAPD. Only when Will Smith is charged with assault and battery will it show that justice is blind." Source: [10]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: I know that this is going to ignore most of your five comments and I wish it wasn't that way, but keep in mind that it is a bit confusing for me as to where to reply to and that this might address your concerns. The producer for the awards has been interviewed by Good Morning America and claims that Rock "was being very dismissive of those options." Based on the comments by the producer, the only reason that Smith was not arrested or charged was because of Rock's response to the officers present at the awards. Given that it has taken about five days for this to be published, it might be best to note here that we likely don't have the full story of what happened in the aftermath and that it likely will take weeks to do so. -- Super Goku V (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Super Goku V ... Thanks. I saw your message ... will reply later. Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Main image is up for deletion

Image at the top of the article is being considered for deletion. Feoffer (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Jim Carrey

This guy for some reason keeps re-adding a 1997 incident after recent comments from Carrey. I removed it per WP:UNDUE, but they refuse to discuss their bold action they've re-added 4 times now. Nyescum (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with getting rid of it. The source article merely says Carrey "is being called out for 'hypocrisy'" and that after his comments "a video showing the actor [...] in June 1997 has circulated on Twitter." It doesn't say who is doing the calling out, or any details as to why some people say it's hypocrisy. Undue for the minimal amount of information it adds, if any, to understanding the topic of this article. My two cents. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
This edit summary appears to be asking for a consensus decision. Delete it. Kire1975 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Time Stamp

The exact time of the incident should be mentioned. Earliest comments on Twitter seem to be 10:28 pm EDT Haegar's (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Why? Kire1975 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thx for your question. "An Incident took place in southern California one late sunday evening in March 2022" Most events do have exact year, day and time. One could argue if this a historic incident, but it is certainly of public interest. Since we do have the information why not mention it? Haegar's (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Although I cannot find a ref for it, I do think the exact time of the incident should be chronicled. A basic fact that someone might want to know. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia NOTFORUM discussion

An entry regarding NOTFORUM tag was introduced on the following page [[11]] regarding this article. Take a look. 202.9.47.48 (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a certain irony to an editor wanting to use a TP as a forum, and then going to the WP:NOTAFORUM talk page (ie not a first-time editor), to use as a forum for the removal of NOTAFORUM ... so that they can HAVEAFORUM. I will leave to others as to whether this new post should also be WP:NOTAFORUM'ed. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. NOTFORUM exists so people can use the page to actually discuss the article, rather than clog up this page with comments regarding the incident itself. The latter of these are best served by social media platforms such as Reddit or TikTok. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
However, some people (Wikipedia editors) are sometimes too quick to throw out the "this is not a forum" warning, when people say things that they don't like, that they don't want to hear, or that they simply disagree with. Or if one editor does not meet the "political correctness" standards expected by another editor (by unilateral fiat). I believe -- nowadays -- it's called "cancel culture", or some variant thereof. In fact, just a moment ago, some editor did that to me (above, on this very Talk Page) ... implying (or, rather, directly stating) that I was being uncivil, engaging in a forum and/or soap box, etc., etc., etc. Of course, the obligatory "he's being racist" was also included and implied. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Here --> Talk:Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident#Verbatim transcription. The "exchange" -- as it were -- between User:Kire1975 and me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Is this really notable enough for its own article? 73.252.158.66 (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been a top news story around the world for the last 24 hours, and touches on several different issues. Why isn't it notable? 331dot (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
It's not standalone notable, and is adequately covered in the Awards article. Begone! WWGB (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. There are many reported details here that would overwhelm the article about the Oscars themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Right now I'd say 50% of this article is stuff that is superfluous It's mostly just responses by unrelated people. Are the opinions of pundits, minor politicians, and miscellaneous celebrities notable or encyclopedic? I also agree with what User:TheJoebro64 said, namely that it's too soon to tell the long term cultural implications of this, if any. I think that the appropriate amount of words to describe this event can fit into a section on the main article for the awards. 73.252.158.66 (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it might be a little too soon to have a standalone article, but I think it'll probably meet the requirements once the news begins to die down. It's certain to go down in history as one of the wildest moments in Academy history and has basically overshadowed everything else about this year's ceremony. JOEBRO64 14:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I personally think this does not meet WP:NOTNEWS at the moment. If there's sustained coverage afterward, it might be notable as a standalone article, but I don't think the page meets the threshold right now. Just about everything in this article is already either in the 94th Academy Awards page, is background, or are quotations. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is notable, and is worthy of its own Wikipedia page. Skcin7 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, now it is (due to its meeting WP:SUSTAINED, but at the time of my comment, it most definitely was not. When I commented, this was literally just the text from the 94th Academy Awards page with a few sentences added. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
One - I think it's definitely notable. Two - If this were added to the "regular" Oscars article (94th Annual), it would clearly overwhelm the entire article. Hence, the need for a stand-alone. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

For me I don’t think this should have its own article. Is just something people are making a big deal out of and since the VMA incident doesn’t have its own article I don’t think this one should either. At the most, maybe have its own section on the 94th Academy Awards page. Eg224 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As it is written now, I don't think this is worthy of such an overly-detailed, stand-alone article. Maybe this incident could be incorporated into a more general article regarding other Oscar Awards mishaps and controversies? Offhand (in no particular order) I can think of the on-stage streaker; political speeches; George C. Scott refusing his award; Marlon Brando sending Sansheen Littlefeather to decline his award; the "La La Land" / "Moonlight" debacle; Rob Loew's "Snow White" opening number; dubious Oscar winners such as Marissa Tomei, Cliff Robertson, John Wayne, etc. over better performances; Jennifer Lawrence tripping on the steps, Rami Malek falling off the stage, John Travolta mangling Idina Menzel's name; Seth McFarlane's "boob" song; David Letterman's "Uma/Oprah" refrain; the James Franco/Anne Hathaway hosting disaster; awkward and/or overly long acceptance speeches; Adrien Brody kissing Halle Berry; Oscars being awarded off-stage or during commercial breaks; the stolen Oscars caper; Ryan Seacrest plugging his clothing line on the red carpet; general lack of diversity; and so on. PNW Raven (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think that's opening up a Pandora's Box. All of those "controversies" were quite distinct in nature. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
They are distinctive, but all are part of Oscar history. As long as it was written in a neutral point-of-view, it would merely list separate events. The article, as is, is simply too long and overly-detailed regarding a single event. PNW Raven (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
If we had an article entitled (something like) "Controversies surrounding the Academy Awards" ... that article would be 95% about this incident and barely 5% about all of the other incidents combined. In my recollection, very few (none?) of the other controversies really rose to such a high level that they'd merit an article. Perhaps they'd merit a one- or two-sentence line, mentioning it in the appropriate Oscars ceremony article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's a question of notability so much as it is a lot of the more famous incidents occurring before the internet documented everything. There are definitely a fair few retrospective articles about the Wayne/Brando/Littlefeather incident, at least, which touched on a lot of similar issues to the Smith/Rock incident. For the record, I'm not suggesting that we should or should not have an article dedicated to Oscar controversies, just saying that I'm confident there's plenty of written material about more than one incident. If anything, I'd suggest splitting the "criticism" category on the main Academy Awards page into "criticism" and "controversies", which are not the same thing. Seeyoshirun (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Verbatim transcription

Verbatim transcription:

  • The article indicates: Will Smith: Keep my wife's name out [of] your fucking mouth!
  • What Will Smith actually said: Keep my wife's name out your fucking mouth!

The difference being that someone (who?) added in that parenthetical [of] into the transcript. I think that it should be removed. We should report what Smith said ... not what we think he meant to say. He was very clear and articulate when he spoke. He spoke with purpose. The fact that he doesn't know -- or refuses to use -- proper / grammatical English is his problem. And we don't need to white-wash and hide that fact. My opinion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it should be accurate, but this reason is hardly neutral. Kire1975 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
he doesn't know -- or refuses to use -- proper / grammatical English is his problem Jeez, Spadaro. That is a horrible horrible reason. I don't even know that the "[of]" is particularly helpful to readers, but I'm almost hesitant to remove it after a rationale like that. Feoffer (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
My rationale is right on target. (Although -- let's all be honest here -- not "politically correct" -- huh?) He spoke very purposefully ... i.e., with a purpose. He did not stutter or mumble or misspeak. In fact, he repeated the same exact statement twice ... verbatim. It was purposeful and not him misspeaking unintentionally. So, -- yeah -- either he doesn't know proper English or he refuses to abide by it. Whether my comments are -- ummmm ... politically correct or not ... is a separate issue. He very purposefully and very deliberately said Keep my wife's name out your fucking mouth! ... and did so not once, but twice. He was emphatic and deliberate. The article should use his verbatim choice of words ... and not try to white-wash his slang/speak. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
proper English No dialect has a monopoly on being "proper" -- people in the room had zero difficulty understanding Smith's communication. The main argument I see for including the "[of]" is that some readers globally might benefit from the labeling of implicit preposition. Feoffer (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
"...either he doesn't know proper English or he refuses to abide by it." - Or he was speaking in the heat of the moment and just repeated the last thing he said. As an anecdote, I have said something incorrect, was able to repeat it word-for-word on request, and only at that point was able to realized I made a mistake. To get back to the primary issue, there are articles that mistakenly believe that he used the word "of", so I don't see a problem with the brackets saying [of]. To suggest a compromise, maybe we should include a sic at the end of the sentence? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I don't think Smith misspoke -- he was using a common contraction, and everyone understood him. Some writers rendered his words "out your", some rendered it "out of your", and some wrote "out [of] your". Through very different rationales, it sounds like everyone agrees that "out of your" is not a good option, as it puts words in Smith's mouth he didn't actually say. I would agree verbatim is best so long as _all_ our readers can understand Smith's sentiment, but not all readers may be able to parse "out your". Feoffer (talk)
Not all readers could parse the phrase "covfefe", either ... but we (i.e., historical records and transcriptions and memorializations) didn't go in and edit that outburst, in the interest of people not understanding what was clearly spoken (or written). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
My point wasn't that clear, but I was attempting to show that there are more possible explanations than what was listed. As for the rest, it should be done in a way so that readers understand. If the opinion is that [of] is not recommended, then it should be removed. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
This talk page is not a forum or a soapbox. Spadaro is Civil POV pushing at this point. See WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SEALIONING. Judging African-American Vernacular English to not be "proper" has no place here. Kire1975 (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Kire1975: Whether it's "proper English" -- or not -- is not the point. The point is: it should be an accurate transcription, not an editorialized transcription. In fact, adding in the editorial parenthetical -- the extra [of] -- outright implies that it is indeed improper English and thus needs to be fixed -- or explained -- through the editorialized parenthetical. You're bolstering my point, not the opposite point. So, how exactly am I the one "pushing" Civil POV? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, exactly for the issue raised above, we should just quote the guy directly. There is no need to "add" or "improve" or "clarify" or "clean up" what he said. For the exact reasons stated above. I can't imagine that people who read Keep my wife's name out your fucking mouth! are going to be so confused, due to the lack of the "of" preposition. We can't imply that Smith meant to say "of". Hence, we just type / transcribe exactly what he said. And -- in any event -- I am quite sure that the phrase Keep my wife's name out your fucking mouth! has a pretty clear meaning, even if one were to be "confused" by the lack of a (usually-placed) preposition. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"G.I. Jane II" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect G.I. Jane II and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 1#G.I. Jane II until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 07:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

DreamWorks "crossover"

I don't want to get into an edit war with the IP address that reverted the bit about DreamWorks after I deleted it, but I'd appreciate third party input on whether it deserves to be in here. The video in question literally has "shitpost" in the title, and the lone reference is now a dead link. At minimum, the section as written misrepresents the video as an official DreamWorks thing, which it unquestionably is not, and beyond that I don't think it meets the threshold for notability. Tisnec (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I would rather devote a sentence to how various Internet memes based on "Oscar slaps Marty" have been made, provided a decent source can be found. I'm not sure what makes that video exactly more notable than this one or this one. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Name in lead

Hello. I was just wondering how come my edits adding the name in the lead was removed? Most other articles usually have the article's name in bold in the lead. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with having the name in the lede. What is the counter-argument? BD2412 T 22:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure, it has been removed twice and for one of the edits, the only reason was MOS:BOLD. Per WP:BRD, I thought I should bring the discussion here. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
MOS:BOLD mentions bolding name-in-lead isn't mandatory, but a better link is MOS:AVOIDBOLD: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." Your way works, but it's more redundant. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Browsing some more MOS, I found an even better article: WP:SBE. This is actually good info for me... 70.163.208.142 (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"G.I. Jada" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect G.I. Jada and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4#G.I. Jada until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

On summarizing

@Smuckola, re Special:Diff/1102862451: I don't follow your revert. It seems to imply that we must always summarize things in the lede paragraph, even when a direct quote would fit and be more informative. The verbal part of the confrontation is encapsulated in two sentences. Two sentences can easily be quoted in an article's lede paragraph. There's no benefit to the reader in using vague phrases like shouted profane remarks and briefly responded to Smith's interjections when we can just say what they said in roughly the same amount of space. Someone reading just the lede paragraph—which is all that many readers ever read—has no idea whether Smith shouted "I'll fucking kill you, motherfucker" or "You're a damn meanie-face" or anything in between, and no idea whether Rock's response was to taunt Smith, apologize, or anything in between. (Not to mention that "shouted ... remarks" is a strange formulation and "interjections" is a bit euphemistic.)

If your objection is that I didn't go far enough, inasmuch as I retained a brief further exchange, I'd be fine with summarizing in more detail; I was trying to maintain a balance regarding lede graf length.

In any case, as I noted in my edit, the previous version has an outright factual error, which you've restored: Smith's "Keep my wife's name" came after Rock's first comment, but the restored wording implies the opposite order of events. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Hello there, wikifriend. I was saying that there was no point in cherry picking what to duplicate and what to summarize, from an elaborate body located immediately below. Because in this case, there is no point in duplicating any of it. A summary is optimal, and the full quote is right there. Yeah another editor had long ago published some awkward words about "interjections", which is trying to poke through the fact that it's a summary. Other editors had tried "shouted profanity" but that was awkwardly imprecise. I looked repeatedly for what you're saying about being out of chronological order and after a couple minutes, I see that is only if you inexplicably interpreted it as the literal script that you're somehow partially looking for. No, it just is a summary. It doesn't include all of Chris's speaking parts. Because a summary doesn't need to. I usually write lead summaries to be the least anyone needs to know, but there is no reason to awkwardly imagine a reader who is lazily illiterate or incredibly busy, yet also inexplicably curious. — Smuckola(talk) 09:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

New title

This article was moved from Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident to Will Smith slapping Chris Rock incident. I'm not a fan of the new title, as the grammar seems unnatural. Theoretically, I could move it back, but I'd prefer to know if anyone else feels the same first. If it's a toss up, I don't mind leaving it here for now and holding a requested move discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the undiscussed move. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Sentence relevancy

The sentence in question is "On May 4, 2022, Dave Chappelle was performing stand-up comedy, where he was tackled onstage by an armed audience member. Chris Rock joined him onstage to joke, "Was that Will Smith?". I don't exactly see the relevancy of this to the article other than the (in my opinion) poor taste joke by Chris Rock. It also doesn't provide much context at all to this situation. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Where were the bodyguards?

I've seen altercations like this stopped at fair concerts multiple times. The aggressor tossed off stage. I find it very strange that an event of this size had such poor security measures that this could even happen. 96.18.151.192 (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

April 1st? Is that really the correct resignation date?

I want to make sure that these facts are correct. 96.18.151.192 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Keep my wife's name out your fuckin mouth" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Keep my wife's name out your fuckin mouth and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Keep my wife's name out your fuckin mouth until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing citations for BLP-sensitive stuff

In this section (Will_Smith–Chris_Rock_slapping_incident#Individuals) there is a table with few citations. Has there been a discussion about this? Are the citations found elsewhere in the article? If so, they should also be located immediately after each person's name. Each entry without a citation should have a CN tag. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Consolation from other entertainers

This article does not take mention of the other entertainers that consoled Will and Chris such as Denzel Washington and Puff Daddy. Quit42 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

GAN?

Do you think this article is too far from GAN? Other than some small adjustments, I think it's close, but would appreciate opinions. I'm considering sending this to PR to make sure. Skyshifter talk 23:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Title rename

Shouldn't we rename the page title to "Will Smith slapping Chris Rock incident"? 611fan2001 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Image removal

@Vchimpanzee: Hi, I just did a GAN change. I don't see why we would have the same image two times in the article. Skyshifter talk 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice. Sorry.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
No problem. Indeed, I forgot to use edit summary. Skyshifter talk 17:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Move transcript to Wikiquote

Per WP:NPS and WP:LONGQUOTE I think it is surerfulous to include the verbatim transcripts of their verbal interaction in this article. We are WP:NOTNEWS, and this text should just be in Wikiquote which is more appropriate for this dialogue. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a reader could fully understand the incident without seeing all the dialogue. No objection to adding it to Wikiquote , of course. Feoffer (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


Oh yes. I will definitely review this nomination. Good to meet you, User:Skyshifter. You have a little bit of work ahead of you. :-) Prhartcom (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

In my first ten minutes of review, the sources are in good shape. I will now give them a thorough examination (which I am sure you have already done).

The article is in pretty good shape. It has very obviously been written by many Wikipedians, as you said. Let's see if we can make a few improvements to make it one cohesive, well-written work.

Skyshifter, I notice you yourself have never contributed to the article. Although you have participated in discussions about the article. This is grounds for Quick Fail. Yet, you are here? Prhartcom (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I've just seen your comments. Like I said in the nomination, many editors have edited the article, so there wasn't any specific one that I could ask for authorization to nominate it to GAN. However, I've opened a peer review for it and previously asked in the article's talk page if I could nominate it to GAN (and was ignored), so it should be fine. Skyshiftertalk 02:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's okay with me. Let's get to work. To be well-written, this article needs to be able to be one, single joy to read. It needs to start at the beginning and sequentially take the reader through the events of this story. Each section should have a good opening sentence and a good closing sentence. Since many editors contributed content, we really should change all the repetitive sentences "On On April 21 ..." to actual prose. We want people to read to the end of the article; readers should never have to stumble through any writing that would make them lose interest in the article.

I'll provide more specific notes next, but hopefully I am already helping to identify what improvements should be done to the article. It's nearly there, don't worry! Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(User:Feoffer, who must actually be the nominator, then began responding to the review, below.)

Background

This section is pretty good, as it lays the background and introduces what is about to happen. No way, though, should it open with the words "After the ceremony ..." (move this whole paragraph somewhere else). My suggestion is to write a new opening sentence in your own words that opens the article and summarizes the state of things that led up to that night. Then these three paragraphs could follow in their entirety, as each one introduces each main character. The opening sentence here needs to start at the beginning. Who are these people? We should probably mention Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith had been married since December 31, 1997. Let's move the "I wasn't invited" sentence to close this section, as it sets us picturing Rock giving his opening monologue of that fateful night.

Incident

Really good. No notes yet. I got chills.

Aftermath

It could really use a good opening sentence in your own words. First three paragraphs are good writing. I think they could even be given a subsection title, as these events all happened that night. Starting in the fourth paragraph, "On April 21, 2022 ..." we need some touch up writing. Really, all the text starting here up to the public apology subsection could be one big paragraph with a new subsection title, then rewrite that paragraph; it would be 90% of the same text as before, but we need your help to write some compelling 10%: A good opening sentence here, keep all the middle maybe the same, then tie it all up with an ending sentence. The public apology subsection writing is good; it would then be just another subsection. The new opening sentence is meant to introduce, not summarize; so it should not mention a future event. Let's not even have any sentences before the first subsection, but let's fix the opening sentence of the first subsection. Something like, "After the incident, Smith continued to participate in the ceremony and subsequent celebrations. Some in attendance were confused that no actions were taken [if there is a source for this!]. Within forty minutes, Smith was presented ..." Keep the events presented sequentially and the story flowing. Please fix the sentence "On April 21, 2022 ..." We really want to minimize these "On July 4, 1776 ..." sentences; we prefer to read actual prose. We need a well-written sentence to close the section, something that really strikes a chord, maybe stating this Netflix decision or whatever was the first consequence for Smith. Prhartcom (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Tremendous improvements! Such great work! You are getting it!

Everything up to the Comical responses section is done. Love that sub heading.

"On May 4, 2022, Dave Chappelle" perhaps instead: "Five weeks after the incident, Dave Chappelle ..."

"On November 29, 2022, Smith appeared as a guest on The Daily Show" perhaps instead: "Smith appeared as a guest on the November 29, 2022 episode of The Daily Show ..."

"Kimmel would also joke ..." In my opinion, this goes way off track, bringing up heavy off-the-subject topics. This sentence should be deleted. Then continue with the sentence about Rock's Netflix special.

"Following public backlash, Smith issued a formal apology" We need to know when, i.e. "Following public backlash, Smith issued a formal apology the next day."

"On July 29, 2022, Smith posted a YouTube video" perhaps instead: "Smith posted a YouTube video on July 29 ..."

"On March 29, Smith initiated a six-minute Zoom call" perhaps instead: "The following day, Smith initiated a six-minute Zoom call ..."

"The Board of Governors were not aware of the conversation" This sounds like it needs to be emphasized; perhaps instead: "Unfortunately, the Board of Governors were not aware of the conversation ..."

"One of the participants" This could possibly be attached to the previous sentence with a semicolon.

"On March 30, the Academy initiated disciplinary proceedings against Smith" perhaps instead: "The Academy initiated disciplinary proceedings against Smith on March 30 ..."

Maybe after the last sentence "for sexual crimes", add a sentence to bring it back around, i.e. "Smith would be the sixth expulsion since the creation of the Academy."

"On April 1, 2022, Smith preemptively resigned" perhaps instead: "Smith preemptively resigned from the Academy on April 1, 2022. AMPAS had told him ..."

The rest of the Aftermath section is brilliant. More later. Prhartcom (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Rock made numerous jokes about the incident and Smith." Is this a good closing sentence? It sounds like this moment should be emphasized. Perhaps instead: "Addressing the issue seriously for the first time, Rock made numerous jokes ..."

This article is on its way. Prhartcom (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I just realized the Comical responses subsection should be moved away to allow the story to flow sequentially. Hopefully it can be moved lower in this same section, but there is a Comedians subsection later in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

I read it and it flowed well; nothing stood out. No notes. The Weekend Update was a great way to end the section. Prhartcom (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Anthony Hopkins paragraph could be moved to the Initial Response subsection since this happened that night.

Maybe dropping the portion of the quote "which is good" would make the quote even stronger.

So the Weekend Update sentence belongs in Views on criminality?

More later. Prhartcom (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"[T]hat ..." I wouldn't think this bracket is necessary if you're just capitalizing a letter. "That ..." should be fine.

The Comedians section is starting to be brilliant now. Except this nice opening sentence should be moved somewhere better: "The incident provided fodder for on-stage comedians" because we were already talking about that.

And the two sentences about Jimmy Kimmel now should be moved out of this closing paragraph, that is really only about Rock and Smith.

"Chris Rock joined him onstage" perhaps instead "Chris Rock suddenly joined him onstage ..." to emphasize this moment was unexpected.

Analysis

"University of Southern California professor ..." this paragraph is still talking about the same thing as the previous paragraph, so don't start a new paragraph.

"unlikely to have happened, and Littlefeather had no way of witnessing this take place." perhaps instead "unlikely to have happened, as Littlefeather had no way of witnessing this."

Section title "Comparisons with past incidents" I expected to be about Smith's past incidents, but it was about incidents of others (from the past). If you can think of a fix for this, go for it.

Smith film delayed
"it was announced ..." perhaps instead "it had been announced ..."

I have re-read the article and the rest seems fine. Great improvements. Prhartcom (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

General

More later. Prhartcom (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I've taken a first stab at implementing your feedback, see what you think! Feoffer (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, hello Feoffer, good to meet you. I see you also have never contributed to the article. You have been involved in some discussions since nearly the beginning.
I see your improvements, this is coming along! These are good improvements. Okay, I must keep reviewing it. Remember, I think we generally have only one thing to accomplish during this review: Improve the writing of this this pretty well copy-edited article by making it one, cohesive article that presents the story sequentially and entertainingly, with compelling opening and closing sentences written in your own words, keeping us hanging on the edge of our seat, with no awkward sentences to stumble through. More later. Prhartcom (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I'm implemented your proposed changes! Thanks for the improvements. Feoffer (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
"In the first of many consequences for Smith ..." is a great example of how to end a section in a compelling way. Prhartcom (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you!!!! I should say, I usually get negative feedback when I write "compelling" text by users who feel it violates encyclopedic tone. You've been with us since the beginning, I see, so it's special compliment coming from you. Feoffer (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. It's a fine line. They're right; the encyclopedic voice is what we must have. And you and I are right; it is possible to add a few words here and there that end up creating compelling writing that is a joy to read. Don't ever let your encyclopedic writing be boring! Prhartcom (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
So the Weekend Update sentence belongs in Views on criminality? I'm thinking yes? It's a specific pointed commentary on the process and decision not to arrest, whereas the other comedic responses are more generic fodder for laughs. Feoffer (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Good enough for me, and is a great way to end this serious section.

Thanks for the quick actions during this review. I keep re-reading the article looking for things, but this article was so well copy edited to begin with (makes your job easier). I think your fixes during this GA review have improved the sequence of the information and the rhythm of the presented prose and the overall engrossed, entertained feeling it gives us while reading. This article is now well written.

Please allow me another day to verify sources and check the other criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'm caught up with your changes, all great. Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Lead

"Chris Rock insisted that charges not be filed against Will Smith" (a note in the Infobox). The only note in the article was probably added by someone who hadn't read the article, as as this is stated later in the Initial response subsection ("Rock repeatedly declined to press charges")(By the way, where it says that, you may as well move the note's reference number 1 CNN here to join reference number 41 Deadline Hollywood.

"and was banned from attending AMPAS-related events for ten years, effective April 8." perhaps instead drop the April 8, and maybe change "and was banned" to ""and was then banned".

Sources

Feoffer, I was reading the sources and realized this article does not mention that in October 2023, Pinkett Smith revealed that she and Smith have been separated since 2016. I found this fact in reference number 3, Oprah Mag.

See reference number 3; it is pointing to an article with a different title than what is stated in the reference.

Same with Cosmopolitan reference number 6; the article title is different from the one referenced here.

Same with USA Today reference number 85. One celebrity's name was swapped for another one. Maybe the source changed the title later.

"Celebrities who sympathized with Smith include": None of the four articles referenced in this sentence mention the celebrities Jeremy Clarkson, Bradley Cooper, Jamie Foxx, Tyrese Gibson, Kevin Hart, Jameela Jamil, Leslie Odom Jr., or Jon Voight. Pretty shocking BLP violation. Sources must be found for each of these names or delete them all. Rosie O'Donnell source is missing from the next sentence. I found a Clarkson source after a quick Internet search; perhaps the others can be found as well.

I verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images. Prhartcom (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're good. Added a section on the Pinkett Smith memoir that addresses separation, tweaked the changed refs to default to the archival versions instead, added refs for the celebs where appropriate -- for Cooper, Foxx, and Odom, I found quotes that did suggest generic sympathy but not really "support" so I errored on the side of caution and cut them. I want to thank you so much for spotting this! Feoffer (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Good work. We're done! Congratulations! Prhartcom (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Good job to you and Feoffer. The high quality of this article was not lost on me while reading it. I'm also glad I was able to make some very minor contributions to help tighten it up. This article is a classic case of teamwork. Cheers! Electricmaster (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Rock–Will_Smith_slapping_incident/Archive_1&oldid=1214730152"