Talk:Jada Pinkett Smith

Hair Loss
Why is there nothing in the article (or in the talk page, for that matter), regarding Smith's hair loss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.99 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Good Question: In 2018 she publicly talked about her hair loss, the first time. Hair loss can be caused by an autoimmune problem which attacks the hair follicles. She said it may be caused by stress. I’ve been getting a lot of questions about why I’ve been wearing this turban … Well, I’ve been having issues with hair loss. And it was terrifying when it first started. Telecine Guy (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See the "Personal life" section. In 2018, Pinkett Smith revealed that she had been diagnosed with alopecia. She shared a video on her Instagram account in 2021 showing herself with a shaved head, saying "Now at this point, I can only laugh". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes; hair loss (alopecia) is incredibly common & not necessarily an 'autoimmune disorder', which this wiki used to claim. At least 25% of Americans have alopecia & likely near a slight majority of 50+ year olds have it. I think there has been some significant misunderstanding in the mass media & elsewhere due to the use of the medicalized term & the fact that it sounds serious to a layperson...especially with the whole 'autoimmune disorder' thing. Discussing & quantifying someone's mildly patchy hair as a disease generally would have no place on Wikipedia, save for the fact that this has reached the level of national pop culture. Dlobr (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm. In the real world, alopecia areata affects 1 out of every 500 to 1,000 in the U.S. Though the causes are not fully understood, it is known to have an autoimmune component. Sounds like you're referring to androgenetic alopecia, which is different from alopecia areata. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Oscars indicent
Shouldn't there be some brief mention under the "Personal" section of the Oscars indecent? There are plenty of items in that section which are less material, more trivial, than this indicent 78.19.232.48 (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Source for polyamorous?
Currently, this article is included in Category:Polyamorous people. But, why? Source? Even if she has had sexual relationships outside her marriage, with or without permission, that's not necessarily polyamory. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Update profile photo to something more recent
She had her husband assault someone over a bald joke. You need to have her recent profile pic represent how she looks and acts these days. Update the profile pic to one that shows she's has no hair. Represent powerful black women! 2600:1005:B0F3:734B:CC0B:3E95:AA2F:B333 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The profile pictures don't have to be a recent photo. Just a nice picture of the person. PeachyBum07 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Controversies
Something about her recently racist views and comentaries should be added to the wiki. Alejojojo6 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, about her latest "documentary" about Cleopatra 213.233.108.137 (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Marital Status
I noticed that a marriage "end" date was listed as 2016. That's incorrect. The Smith's were separated but NOT divorced. There should be no "end date" at this time. There's nothing wrong about discussing their separation in 2016 but let's be factual. It's the one thing I don't like about Wikipedia. Some people have added, removed, or made up what they call "facts" on various celebrity pages. So, I rely on Wiki about 60% of the time. Sgaines0719 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Scientology
I added this article to the category, but Firefangledfeathers removed it, saying "article supports her making a related donation, but not being a member". Subject is not a Scientologist, but she wasn't added to Category:American Scientologists. Her donations and recent discussion of using Scientology study technology to homeschool her children merit the categorization. Feoffer (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in the article about "using Scientology study technology to homeschool her children", so that wouldn't meet WP:CATV. The current amount of content related to Scientology suggest that WP:CATDEF hasn't been met either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected!  I've added material, though perhaps not in the ideal spot.   Take a peek. Feoffer (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good placement! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)