This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I doub there is rumors of her having lesbian sex with her dad two years from now....The person who wrote this is sad. Grow up. I am not a susan surandon fan by any means but that person wants to show the world how we can manipulate the past with wikipedia....strange maybe some day it will be in there that saddam actully bomb the world trade center on sept 11 instead of bin ladden —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.62.52 ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 February 2007.
This article has no reference to her successor for The Academy Award for best actress. and that she precceded Jessica Lange. Also this page should continue the Academy Award box that directs from the Jessica Lange page. Ace ofgabriel 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe a better photo should be used. This one exposes her bra, and is clearly un-wikipedia-ish. It reminds me of the problem that the Haley Berry article had when a user kept uploading the nude of her in Swordfish. -- Vince 07:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Crime Library isn't a valid citation. It states: "Shortly after the trial, she gave birth to a baby. She and the father, actor Tim Robbins, named him "Jack Henry."" The trial was in 1982. In 1985, she had a daughter, then 1989 had her son Jack. She may or may not have named him for the murderer, but the Crime Library article does not prove this theory. Swango 22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does someone keep taking the references to Jack Henry Abbott out completely? This is something of interest that absolutely should be included. If what is being said is not true, then say what really is true and why it is that people keep bringing it up.
I have major problems with the inclusion of this bit of gossip and the implications of including it. I've looked over the article history over the last month+, which reveals that several editors have had similar issues with the inclusion of this material, and each and every one of them have been reverted without discussion on this talk page by the editor who put the information in. While I grant that the material has been pared down from its initial inclusion, it doesn't take away from the fact that the contributor wishes for the reader to conclude that Sarandon is aligning herself as pro-Israel/anti-Palenstine by attending this event. First of all, the main citation is taken from a tabloid newspaper gossip item, the New York Post. Next, the remaining citation is to what appears to be a political blog forum. I'm not convinced either of these sources are reliable ones. I removed the material, noting it was POV. The contributor returned it with the edit summary of Information useful for future biographers concerning her position on Palestine-Israel Issue. I approached the editor, Artpot and expressed my concerns with this addition and the intention he expressed regarding Sarandon with that summary, requested better sources than the gossip column item and again removed it as POV. He reverted my change with the edit summary of Not true. The entry merely records a documented historical event. In light of Susan Sarandon's political activism it is relevant biographically in comprehending her life's story. Again, this editor is implying that by her attendance, she has taken a stance regarding Israel/Palenstine by the inclusion, and expresses his intent blatantly by his edit summaries. This violates WP:BLP and is a biased addition, which ultimately exposes Wikipedia to liability. By WP:BLP, this material must be removed from the article based on questionable reliability of sources and contentiousness of the material supplied coupled with the intent of the contributor as evidenced by his edit summaries. I've also put a note on the biographies of living persons noticeboard regarding this as well as request for page protection until this issue can be sorted out. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The article on Puerto Rican is based on taped oral account, written notes, school records, written account by Hal Lasky (some of which may be found on www.vasefinder.com), newspaper stories from the New York Times and others papers, as well other info found on the web that have been able to linked to the articles. They are reliable and certianly not POV or political.
As to Susan Sarandon. There is no POV on my part. I am merely recording historicals events which are applicable to her political activism. I have cited two sources (though there are others) NYC Indymedia and the NY Post. If there is any POV it is on the part of those who are attempting to expunge what they perceive may be "inconvenient" historical events concerning her.
I am a historian (I have a BA and MA in history) so I very much aware that history is based on personal perspective and there is no such thing as truly "objective" accounts. However the events did happen and there is a distinct possibility that future actions/events around them will take place. Wikipedia would be well served to keep the entry.
I will make no further attempt to edit the Sarandon article; however I will take this matter to the attention of higher ups at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artpot ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In reply to:
"I truly have no idea what Puerto Rican pottery has to do with Susan Sarandon, nor why it is relevant to this discussion."
Neither do I. However NealN's editorial interest in PR Pottery and "tweeking" of that article came only after my entry in the Sarandon article of the Leviev incident. I make the statement only as protection for the PR Pottery article from further "tweeking" or even removal.
In reply to:
"The issue of why this is not currently significant is based solely on two things. One is the fact that Sarandon has made no statement or issued a news release that specifies a stance on the Israel/Palenstine issue. The other is that the reliability of the two sources you've offered for this have been called into question, and therefore, by Wikipedia policy, this material needs to remain out of the article.
Her crossing of the Leviev picket line is now part of the historical record, whether one likes it or not. As to the NY Post and NY Indymedia being acceptable sources of informattion, there again you display your personal prejudice and POV by them lableing "illegitimate."
The NY Post is a long established NYC newspaper. Indymedia, though not old, has, I believe, been around around longer than Wikipedia and has broken and reported accurately some very important news stories. As to Susan Sarandon not making a statement concerning her crossing of the Leviev picket line, her publicity people have in fact issued such a statement concerning it, (though not her position on Palestine-Israel). But that is not recorded in Wikipedia because you have chosen to censor the historical event and everything concerning it.
Please don't say that the edition of that event is POV or "political" on my part or is uncencyclopedic. I am not the one purging historical events or determining "legitimacy" of news sources.
Why don't you approach the editors and publishers of the NY Post or NYC Indymedia with your belief that you do not consider them "legitimate" sources of news and information and see what their response are. ( Artpot ( talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
In Reply to:
"This issue is fairly much determined at this point. If you were, in fact, aware of a response of any kind from Sarandon's people, and you chose not to include it, that is an issue as well. As was said before, your edit summaries reflect your intent to skew this as a political issue, but at this time it is not."
I learned of her press release only after the Leviev entry had been removed. As to equating the NY Post or NY IMC with the The National Enquirer, are you saying that Susan Sarandon did not cross that picket line? Concerning the historical importance of her "chance" interaction with 30 picketers (by some accounts the numbers were larger than that) it only took one person to shoot Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan-- and it is rather doubtful that they had any part in the planning or execution of their shootings.
Though Susan Sarandon is not a US President, that event will have a lasting effect on her future political activism, whether a small group of censors at Wikipedia choose to record it or not. My interest is not to skew but to record accurately. ( Artpot ( talk) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
"As well, the future of Susan Sarandon's political activism won't be determined by whether or not Wikipedia includes her attendance at a cocktail party,"
In reply:
The inclusion of this fact in Wikipedia may or may not in itself effect the course of her political activism, but the action of her crossing that picket line already has (as witness her press release). How significantly it has is yet to be fully seen, but the point is that you are acting as a censor whether you wish to accept it or not. Your accusation accusing me of "POV" or playing politics isn't go to hide or blur that. ( Artpot ( talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
I was combing through the category page when I found Sarandon's name on the list. I've checked out the article, but there doesn't appear to be a citation to this, nor any mention in the article. Can anyone verify this? Sarcastic Avenger ( talk) 06:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarandon's recent statement is well sourced and notable, at least thru the end of the year. Whether it's notable in a historic sense is a call for a day down the road.
More importantly, the edit was crafted by an editor who took constructive criticism from two other editors and tried to do it right. Let's not bite constructive hands.
Really, for now, I think it's notable enough to stay. David in DC ( talk) 19:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this image is free, it's a pretty terrible image that should not be used in this article. If anyone disagrees, please justify this particular image below before re-adding it. Thanks! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 07:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Second paragraph: Since 1988, Sarandon was in a relationship with actor Tim Robbins, whom she met while filming Bull Durham for twenty-three years.
..."for twenty-three years" is misplaced. It refers to the filming of Bull Durham, and thus means Sarandon was filming Bull Durham for twenty-three years.
It should read:
From 1988 until 2009 (23 years), Sarandon was in a relationship with actor Tim Robbins, whom she met while filming Bull Durham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.145.212 ( talk) 01:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's another reference if required. Wherever it appears, surely 1988-2009 is 22 years maximum? NOT 23? Looks like our media can't count and are spreading an error.
Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins split after 23 years
Mex Cooper and Georgina Robinson, December 24, 2009 - 12:48PM (AEST-UTC+11)
HERE
[1]
-- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
This is largely a whitewash of Sarandon's political activities that is all about the fluff and little about the substance; it fails to take into account that she is far more partisan and radical than this section would lead you to believe. You'd think it was written by one of her own PR flacks (then again, this is Wikipedia). For instance, no mention is made of her condemnation of Nader's 2004 presidential bid (despite being so vocal in supporting him in 2000), her contributions to Emily's List and the Progressive Patriots Fund, her support for murderer Jack Abbott, ludicrous claims about cuts in veterans's benefits, equating Al Qaeda to corporate America, etc. Alcarillo ( talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I find the statement "largely a whitewash" extreme. Your actual complaint is that the section doesn't have enough detail and, from your statements, that it isn't negative enough. It falls upon everyone to help improve an article, not just stop in, make a blanket statement that accuses the editors that have worked on the article to show a bias in what is presented, and then qualify that by mentioning issues in terms that reflects a bias on your part. If you have an issue with the section, by all means, make contributions, but please keep them a great deal less POV than your statement about the neutrality of the section itself. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Wildhartlivie and David. The article does not seem to have a POV problem, though I hear Alcarillo's POV quite clearly. However, the section isn't as broad in focus as it could be, Sarandon also took part in the Selma to Montgomery marches in March 1965. Though not necessarily relevant to this particular discussion, I recently found a photo of her at the march. Altairisfar talk 02:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The term POV (as in "The article does not seem to have a POV problem") is nonsense. The term can be, and has been, used dishonestly and should be dropped from the Wikipedia lexicon. Everyone has some degree of POV, whether they choose to admit it or not. Unfortunately certain folk, acting as censors here, are in denial of that and their own POV.
In the case of this article it, it does appear to be written by PR flacks in the employ of Susan Sarandon. It is a shame too, because Wikipedia suffers. Artpot ( talk) 13:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just now wondering that too, Artpot! She didn't have anything about her 2008 election so I put it in... within 10 minutes, one guy deleted it. I thought it was an issue with Christianity (the article mentioned Jesus). Well, now I think it was about Edwards... trying to be sure there is not a connection with her and John Edwards, although we all remember it well... those of us who supported Edwards. I'm sure in the months to come she will be talking about Elizabeth Edwards and that will have to come out on Wikipedia, otherwise she will look like a nut running to the side of Elizabeth as though she has no connection to the family.
We'll see... I was told my additions were out of context and the article didn't say she campaigned for Edwards.
-Rob-
There's something missing in the part of this article about Sarandon's early career. It makes it sound as though she dropped completely off the map for five years between Joe and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. But wasn't she a television actress for at least some of this time? I thought she had been in soap operas. -- Dominus 18:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
'although she didn't get a part, she was cast as'. that's inherently confusing and needs clarification. seems contradictory. i sure as hell don't know what it means. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/24/susan-sarandon-on-woody-allen-s-creepiness-her-love-affair-with-david-bowie-and-psychedelics.html -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Susan Sarandon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Did Susan Sarandon really graduate from high school before her twelvth birthday and graduate from college by age 16? If so, this deserves some expansion. |
Last edited at 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 07:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Susan Sarandon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list her children by name, and give their birthdays? The oldest child may be relevant, the others are private citizens and should be treated like any other private citizen. Browntable ( talk) 00:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone edited the "political views" section to include a sentence: "Sarandon played a minor role in the 2016 US election, becoming the first 'Bernie Bro' to help throw the election in the favor of an overgrown Cheeto." In addition to jamming this sentence in between the two source links for the previous sentence, this is also clearly trivial complaining from partisans of the 2016 US election. I'm going to edit the sentence to simply say "Sarandon supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 US Democratic presidential primary."
I'm new to wikipedia. Idk if this merits locking the article. Probably not. But something to keep an eye on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.65.228 ( talk) 11:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
EDIT: Actually I just deleted the sentence entirely, because Sarandon's support for Sanders is mentioned later in the article anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.65.228 ( talk) 11:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The part about her earning a BA in Drama seems false and has no reliable source (the website cited is a recent one and probably copied the information from this Wiki article). Susan Sarandon has said in interviews that she majored in military strategy [1] and was never trained in acting [2]. Some entertainers are known to tell lies about their background but she isn't among them. Iistal ( talk) 00:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
the editor remembered to mention that her mother is a republican... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.4.203 ( talk) 08:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The article currently says:
In an interview with The Guardian published on November 26, 2017, Sarandon said about Hillary Clinton: "I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she were president]".[53] Sarandon's mother Leonora Tomalin is a staunch Republican, a supporter of George W. Bush and the Iraq War.[54][55]
The second sentence appears to explain that her position on Hillary Clinton is somehow tied to her mother's political position. However, Hillary Clinton was also a supporter of the Iraq War (and voted for it).
I don't think the second sentence adds anything and should removed. If not, then I think the second second should be modified to say, "a supporter of George W. Bush, and (like Hillary Clinton) the Iraq War." with the correct reference to her vote:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.36.85 ( talk) 06:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Added one of Susan's opinion regarding the last incident in Palestine, source her tweet ( https://twitter.com/SusanSarandon/status/1524406358799491075) got removed by Schazjmd for wanting independent sources. Here are two independent sources:
https://en.royanews.tv/news/35596/2022-05-11
However Schazjmd still don't believe it's significant enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Susan_Sarandon&diff=1087319766&oldid=1087315764
Ras al Ghoul ( talk) 22:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
First time poster, but it seems like this was written by someone on the fathers side 2600:4040:400E:5E00:DD60:21E1:F128:F183 ( talk) 07:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Lacks much info. Her filmography is as substantial as that of Jessica Lange or Glenn Close, if not more. Someone please expand. The1iHope ( talk) 22:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Drown Soda: @ NiceBC: @ Film Enthusiast: Need experienced editors to expand the Career section. The1iHope ( talk) 23:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is false. Other 'authors' keep deleting facts, including Susan's support of Hamas. 108.30.14.13 ( talk) 03:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
she was dropped from a movie because of her remarks at the rally I understand editing the clumsiness of how I entered this info but I corrected that and it was reverted again. This is factual, sourced information. Shouldn't it be included on her page? Maybe somebody else can add it? Thanks everybody. Honore1 ( talk) 15:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Sarandon was specifically talking about hate crimes against Jewish people in the United States motivated by the Israeli government's actions, but she ended up making a misinformed comment about the history of antisemitism in the United States. "After making a misinformed comment about the history of antisemitism in the United States" would be much more specific and accurate. The top of the page also needs to note that Sarandon apologized for the phrasing of her comment on December 1; it shows that she is learning from her mistake. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hobbes090414 (
talk •
contribs) 23:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I doub there is rumors of her having lesbian sex with her dad two years from now....The person who wrote this is sad. Grow up. I am not a susan surandon fan by any means but that person wants to show the world how we can manipulate the past with wikipedia....strange maybe some day it will be in there that saddam actully bomb the world trade center on sept 11 instead of bin ladden —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.62.52 ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 February 2007.
This article has no reference to her successor for The Academy Award for best actress. and that she precceded Jessica Lange. Also this page should continue the Academy Award box that directs from the Jessica Lange page. Ace ofgabriel 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe a better photo should be used. This one exposes her bra, and is clearly un-wikipedia-ish. It reminds me of the problem that the Haley Berry article had when a user kept uploading the nude of her in Swordfish. -- Vince 07:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Crime Library isn't a valid citation. It states: "Shortly after the trial, she gave birth to a baby. She and the father, actor Tim Robbins, named him "Jack Henry."" The trial was in 1982. In 1985, she had a daughter, then 1989 had her son Jack. She may or may not have named him for the murderer, but the Crime Library article does not prove this theory. Swango 22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does someone keep taking the references to Jack Henry Abbott out completely? This is something of interest that absolutely should be included. If what is being said is not true, then say what really is true and why it is that people keep bringing it up.
I have major problems with the inclusion of this bit of gossip and the implications of including it. I've looked over the article history over the last month+, which reveals that several editors have had similar issues with the inclusion of this material, and each and every one of them have been reverted without discussion on this talk page by the editor who put the information in. While I grant that the material has been pared down from its initial inclusion, it doesn't take away from the fact that the contributor wishes for the reader to conclude that Sarandon is aligning herself as pro-Israel/anti-Palenstine by attending this event. First of all, the main citation is taken from a tabloid newspaper gossip item, the New York Post. Next, the remaining citation is to what appears to be a political blog forum. I'm not convinced either of these sources are reliable ones. I removed the material, noting it was POV. The contributor returned it with the edit summary of Information useful for future biographers concerning her position on Palestine-Israel Issue. I approached the editor, Artpot and expressed my concerns with this addition and the intention he expressed regarding Sarandon with that summary, requested better sources than the gossip column item and again removed it as POV. He reverted my change with the edit summary of Not true. The entry merely records a documented historical event. In light of Susan Sarandon's political activism it is relevant biographically in comprehending her life's story. Again, this editor is implying that by her attendance, she has taken a stance regarding Israel/Palenstine by the inclusion, and expresses his intent blatantly by his edit summaries. This violates WP:BLP and is a biased addition, which ultimately exposes Wikipedia to liability. By WP:BLP, this material must be removed from the article based on questionable reliability of sources and contentiousness of the material supplied coupled with the intent of the contributor as evidenced by his edit summaries. I've also put a note on the biographies of living persons noticeboard regarding this as well as request for page protection until this issue can be sorted out. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The article on Puerto Rican is based on taped oral account, written notes, school records, written account by Hal Lasky (some of which may be found on www.vasefinder.com), newspaper stories from the New York Times and others papers, as well other info found on the web that have been able to linked to the articles. They are reliable and certianly not POV or political.
As to Susan Sarandon. There is no POV on my part. I am merely recording historicals events which are applicable to her political activism. I have cited two sources (though there are others) NYC Indymedia and the NY Post. If there is any POV it is on the part of those who are attempting to expunge what they perceive may be "inconvenient" historical events concerning her.
I am a historian (I have a BA and MA in history) so I very much aware that history is based on personal perspective and there is no such thing as truly "objective" accounts. However the events did happen and there is a distinct possibility that future actions/events around them will take place. Wikipedia would be well served to keep the entry.
I will make no further attempt to edit the Sarandon article; however I will take this matter to the attention of higher ups at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artpot ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In reply to:
"I truly have no idea what Puerto Rican pottery has to do with Susan Sarandon, nor why it is relevant to this discussion."
Neither do I. However NealN's editorial interest in PR Pottery and "tweeking" of that article came only after my entry in the Sarandon article of the Leviev incident. I make the statement only as protection for the PR Pottery article from further "tweeking" or even removal.
In reply to:
"The issue of why this is not currently significant is based solely on two things. One is the fact that Sarandon has made no statement or issued a news release that specifies a stance on the Israel/Palenstine issue. The other is that the reliability of the two sources you've offered for this have been called into question, and therefore, by Wikipedia policy, this material needs to remain out of the article.
Her crossing of the Leviev picket line is now part of the historical record, whether one likes it or not. As to the NY Post and NY Indymedia being acceptable sources of informattion, there again you display your personal prejudice and POV by them lableing "illegitimate."
The NY Post is a long established NYC newspaper. Indymedia, though not old, has, I believe, been around around longer than Wikipedia and has broken and reported accurately some very important news stories. As to Susan Sarandon not making a statement concerning her crossing of the Leviev picket line, her publicity people have in fact issued such a statement concerning it, (though not her position on Palestine-Israel). But that is not recorded in Wikipedia because you have chosen to censor the historical event and everything concerning it.
Please don't say that the edition of that event is POV or "political" on my part or is uncencyclopedic. I am not the one purging historical events or determining "legitimacy" of news sources.
Why don't you approach the editors and publishers of the NY Post or NYC Indymedia with your belief that you do not consider them "legitimate" sources of news and information and see what their response are. ( Artpot ( talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
In Reply to:
"This issue is fairly much determined at this point. If you were, in fact, aware of a response of any kind from Sarandon's people, and you chose not to include it, that is an issue as well. As was said before, your edit summaries reflect your intent to skew this as a political issue, but at this time it is not."
I learned of her press release only after the Leviev entry had been removed. As to equating the NY Post or NY IMC with the The National Enquirer, are you saying that Susan Sarandon did not cross that picket line? Concerning the historical importance of her "chance" interaction with 30 picketers (by some accounts the numbers were larger than that) it only took one person to shoot Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan-- and it is rather doubtful that they had any part in the planning or execution of their shootings.
Though Susan Sarandon is not a US President, that event will have a lasting effect on her future political activism, whether a small group of censors at Wikipedia choose to record it or not. My interest is not to skew but to record accurately. ( Artpot ( talk) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
"As well, the future of Susan Sarandon's political activism won't be determined by whether or not Wikipedia includes her attendance at a cocktail party,"
In reply:
The inclusion of this fact in Wikipedia may or may not in itself effect the course of her political activism, but the action of her crossing that picket line already has (as witness her press release). How significantly it has is yet to be fully seen, but the point is that you are acting as a censor whether you wish to accept it or not. Your accusation accusing me of "POV" or playing politics isn't go to hide or blur that. ( Artpot ( talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
I was combing through the category page when I found Sarandon's name on the list. I've checked out the article, but there doesn't appear to be a citation to this, nor any mention in the article. Can anyone verify this? Sarcastic Avenger ( talk) 06:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarandon's recent statement is well sourced and notable, at least thru the end of the year. Whether it's notable in a historic sense is a call for a day down the road.
More importantly, the edit was crafted by an editor who took constructive criticism from two other editors and tried to do it right. Let's not bite constructive hands.
Really, for now, I think it's notable enough to stay. David in DC ( talk) 19:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this image is free, it's a pretty terrible image that should not be used in this article. If anyone disagrees, please justify this particular image below before re-adding it. Thanks! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 07:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Second paragraph: Since 1988, Sarandon was in a relationship with actor Tim Robbins, whom she met while filming Bull Durham for twenty-three years.
..."for twenty-three years" is misplaced. It refers to the filming of Bull Durham, and thus means Sarandon was filming Bull Durham for twenty-three years.
It should read:
From 1988 until 2009 (23 years), Sarandon was in a relationship with actor Tim Robbins, whom she met while filming Bull Durham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.145.212 ( talk) 01:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's another reference if required. Wherever it appears, surely 1988-2009 is 22 years maximum? NOT 23? Looks like our media can't count and are spreading an error.
Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins split after 23 years
Mex Cooper and Georgina Robinson, December 24, 2009 - 12:48PM (AEST-UTC+11)
HERE
[1]
-- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
This is largely a whitewash of Sarandon's political activities that is all about the fluff and little about the substance; it fails to take into account that she is far more partisan and radical than this section would lead you to believe. You'd think it was written by one of her own PR flacks (then again, this is Wikipedia). For instance, no mention is made of her condemnation of Nader's 2004 presidential bid (despite being so vocal in supporting him in 2000), her contributions to Emily's List and the Progressive Patriots Fund, her support for murderer Jack Abbott, ludicrous claims about cuts in veterans's benefits, equating Al Qaeda to corporate America, etc. Alcarillo ( talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I find the statement "largely a whitewash" extreme. Your actual complaint is that the section doesn't have enough detail and, from your statements, that it isn't negative enough. It falls upon everyone to help improve an article, not just stop in, make a blanket statement that accuses the editors that have worked on the article to show a bias in what is presented, and then qualify that by mentioning issues in terms that reflects a bias on your part. If you have an issue with the section, by all means, make contributions, but please keep them a great deal less POV than your statement about the neutrality of the section itself. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Wildhartlivie and David. The article does not seem to have a POV problem, though I hear Alcarillo's POV quite clearly. However, the section isn't as broad in focus as it could be, Sarandon also took part in the Selma to Montgomery marches in March 1965. Though not necessarily relevant to this particular discussion, I recently found a photo of her at the march. Altairisfar talk 02:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The term POV (as in "The article does not seem to have a POV problem") is nonsense. The term can be, and has been, used dishonestly and should be dropped from the Wikipedia lexicon. Everyone has some degree of POV, whether they choose to admit it or not. Unfortunately certain folk, acting as censors here, are in denial of that and their own POV.
In the case of this article it, it does appear to be written by PR flacks in the employ of Susan Sarandon. It is a shame too, because Wikipedia suffers. Artpot ( talk) 13:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just now wondering that too, Artpot! She didn't have anything about her 2008 election so I put it in... within 10 minutes, one guy deleted it. I thought it was an issue with Christianity (the article mentioned Jesus). Well, now I think it was about Edwards... trying to be sure there is not a connection with her and John Edwards, although we all remember it well... those of us who supported Edwards. I'm sure in the months to come she will be talking about Elizabeth Edwards and that will have to come out on Wikipedia, otherwise she will look like a nut running to the side of Elizabeth as though she has no connection to the family.
We'll see... I was told my additions were out of context and the article didn't say she campaigned for Edwards.
-Rob-
There's something missing in the part of this article about Sarandon's early career. It makes it sound as though she dropped completely off the map for five years between Joe and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. But wasn't she a television actress for at least some of this time? I thought she had been in soap operas. -- Dominus 18:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
'although she didn't get a part, she was cast as'. that's inherently confusing and needs clarification. seems contradictory. i sure as hell don't know what it means. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/24/susan-sarandon-on-woody-allen-s-creepiness-her-love-affair-with-david-bowie-and-psychedelics.html -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Susan Sarandon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Did Susan Sarandon really graduate from high school before her twelvth birthday and graduate from college by age 16? If so, this deserves some expansion. |
Last edited at 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 07:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Susan Sarandon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list her children by name, and give their birthdays? The oldest child may be relevant, the others are private citizens and should be treated like any other private citizen. Browntable ( talk) 00:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone edited the "political views" section to include a sentence: "Sarandon played a minor role in the 2016 US election, becoming the first 'Bernie Bro' to help throw the election in the favor of an overgrown Cheeto." In addition to jamming this sentence in between the two source links for the previous sentence, this is also clearly trivial complaining from partisans of the 2016 US election. I'm going to edit the sentence to simply say "Sarandon supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 US Democratic presidential primary."
I'm new to wikipedia. Idk if this merits locking the article. Probably not. But something to keep an eye on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.65.228 ( talk) 11:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
EDIT: Actually I just deleted the sentence entirely, because Sarandon's support for Sanders is mentioned later in the article anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.65.228 ( talk) 11:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The part about her earning a BA in Drama seems false and has no reliable source (the website cited is a recent one and probably copied the information from this Wiki article). Susan Sarandon has said in interviews that she majored in military strategy [1] and was never trained in acting [2]. Some entertainers are known to tell lies about their background but she isn't among them. Iistal ( talk) 00:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
the editor remembered to mention that her mother is a republican... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.4.203 ( talk) 08:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The article currently says:
In an interview with The Guardian published on November 26, 2017, Sarandon said about Hillary Clinton: "I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she were president]".[53] Sarandon's mother Leonora Tomalin is a staunch Republican, a supporter of George W. Bush and the Iraq War.[54][55]
The second sentence appears to explain that her position on Hillary Clinton is somehow tied to her mother's political position. However, Hillary Clinton was also a supporter of the Iraq War (and voted for it).
I don't think the second sentence adds anything and should removed. If not, then I think the second second should be modified to say, "a supporter of George W. Bush, and (like Hillary Clinton) the Iraq War." with the correct reference to her vote:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.36.85 ( talk) 06:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Added one of Susan's opinion regarding the last incident in Palestine, source her tweet ( https://twitter.com/SusanSarandon/status/1524406358799491075) got removed by Schazjmd for wanting independent sources. Here are two independent sources:
https://en.royanews.tv/news/35596/2022-05-11
However Schazjmd still don't believe it's significant enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Susan_Sarandon&diff=1087319766&oldid=1087315764
Ras al Ghoul ( talk) 22:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
First time poster, but it seems like this was written by someone on the fathers side 2600:4040:400E:5E00:DD60:21E1:F128:F183 ( talk) 07:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Lacks much info. Her filmography is as substantial as that of Jessica Lange or Glenn Close, if not more. Someone please expand. The1iHope ( talk) 22:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Drown Soda: @ NiceBC: @ Film Enthusiast: Need experienced editors to expand the Career section. The1iHope ( talk) 23:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is false. Other 'authors' keep deleting facts, including Susan's support of Hamas. 108.30.14.13 ( talk) 03:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
she was dropped from a movie because of her remarks at the rally I understand editing the clumsiness of how I entered this info but I corrected that and it was reverted again. This is factual, sourced information. Shouldn't it be included on her page? Maybe somebody else can add it? Thanks everybody. Honore1 ( talk) 15:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Sarandon was specifically talking about hate crimes against Jewish people in the United States motivated by the Israeli government's actions, but she ended up making a misinformed comment about the history of antisemitism in the United States. "After making a misinformed comment about the history of antisemitism in the United States" would be much more specific and accurate. The top of the page also needs to note that Sarandon apologized for the phrasing of her comment on December 1; it shows that she is learning from her mistake. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hobbes090414 (
talk •
contribs) 23:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)