Talk:Morgan Freeman/Archive 2

Committee to Investigate Russia and "Russophobia"
The user BlindNight has been adding material alleging that Morgan Freeman featured in a "Russophobic" video with sources pointing to Breitbart and CNN. One of these is a reliable source, while the other is not. Even then though, the Breitbart sources does not say anything about "Russophobia." Morgan Freeman did feature in a video, but the claims of Russophobia are not backed up anywhere. Master of Time  ( talk ) 17:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Master of Time, Hello, I assume that we can reach a compromise of some sort, I believe this information is very substantial and does belong in this Wikipedia page, I also believe it should be added to the page of Rob Reiner, the hardline pro-Clinon warhawk, producer and actor. I have added both Breitbart and CNN sources precisely because of the desire to settle any disputes that should follow, for that I am aware that there are portion of wikipedia community which considers CNN unreliable and there's a portion of the community which considers Breitbart unreliable, therefore including them both supposed to keep everybody happy, as for the wording, I am open to discussions how would you consider replacing the word "russophobic", I've seen the video and it clearly shows Morgan Freeman actively peddling anti-russian sentiment and spewing dirt on the entire country, so I assumed that "russophobic" is an accurate description of his actions, however if you would propose a more appropriate word in your opinion, I am perfectly fine with that, Cheers,BlindNight (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Russophobic" is clearly not NPOV and no RS has used any such phrase. While the video may be notable, this needs to be described neutrally. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Master of Time So what kind of wording are you proposing? BlindNight (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What about something like: On September 19, 2017, Freeman featured in video launched by the Committee to Investigate Russia group organized by film director Rob Reiner and The Atlantic senior editor David Frum, in which he lambasted both Russian and American incumbent presidents. Then, if (and only if) there are reliable sources which say it is controversial, we could add something like The video was controversial and Freeman was accused of stirring up anti-Russian sentiment. but we need to use good secondary sources for that and not just link to examples of the accusation. How does that sound folks? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems appropriate to me. Master of Time   ( talk ) 19:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @BobFromBrockley Yeah perfectly fine with that. BlindNight (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile has gone ahead and done an edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morgan_Freeman&diff=next&oldid=804028829 I don't have time to look now if all these are reliable sources (I assume they are) but prima facie it seems like undue weight to give so much wordage to responses to this one event (compare the amount of words (nearly 400) to those dedicated in the article to his entire acting career (over 700) - surely that's not the right proportions?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a fine edit, special thanks to Dekambrist for resolving this. Also, BobFromBrockley, if you believe not enough attention is given to his acting career, and you're probably right about that, you're always free to add more info about that. BlindNight (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

removed Dekambrist edits, saying "Reverted good faith edits by Dekambrist: WP:UNDUE WP:SYNTH, Russian sources attacking Freeman, WP:NPOV violations. Please take this to talk. Rv per complaint at BLPN". Here is the BLPN complaint (from, not discussed yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Morgan_Freeman I absolutely don't think the whole section should be deleted, but I think we need to look at it carefully and make sure it accords with WP policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As I made the edit in question, I felt the need to weigh in on this:


 * 1. called the sources cited "Russian sources attacking Freeman" and that they constituted "NPOV violationss."  If we define "Russian" as the "Russian government," then the only source cited in the edit that fit that label was TASS, the Russian State News Agency.  TASS was used specifically to cite what Russian officials (Peskov and Zakharova) had said about the video.  Their reaction was also reported in a number of Western sources, including The New York Times (which I cited), but I felt that it would be good to get their reaction from an official Russian government source.  As to the other sources, first, as anyone who follows Russian politics knows, Meduza and The Moscow Times are far from being pro-Kremlin sources.  In fact, they are highly critical of the Putin government.  The remaining sources for the edit included The New York Times, Variety, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, The Nation, ThinkProgress, and The Outline.  These can hardly be described as "Russian" or "pro-Russian" sources.


 * 2. The edit is not a case of undue weight. In his word count,  also included the citations, thus giving a much higher number of words and an impression that the section was significantly longer than it actually was.  In fact, excluding the citations of sources, the word count for my edit was about 190 words.  For comparison, the entire section on Morgan's career is 850 words and the section on Morgan's comments on race is 250 words.  I amended it slightly now to tone down some of the language (I changed "lambasted" to "accused") and to mention the fact that Freeman said "we are at war" in the video (a major point of criticism).  This brings the edit to a grand total of 196 words.  In any event, the undue weight argument is not applicable in this case.


 * 3. also stated that the edit was a "synthesis of published material."  In fact, it is not.  The edit reflected the very objective presentation of the issue in most of the sources cited, especially the 2-minute video on the controversy by Al Jazeera, which you can watch here.  It describes the criticism that the video received from experts on Russia and the former Soviet region.  I highly recommend watching it for anyone interested in learning more about this issue. Dekambrist (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do not reinstate this material by edit-warring until the BLP, UNDUE and SYNTH issues have been addressed. I will reply more thoroughly soon. Dr.   K.  22:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not see a problem with the section since there is an entire New York Times article on the controversy and his role in it, I do not see a BLP issue, or any synthesis, as pointed out already it is not undue in its size. We have a section just as large on a car accident he was involved in.  --RAN (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, here we go: and a number of neoconservative thinkers..[60][61][62] is not supported by the citations. Only reference [62] mentions one neocon Max Boot. It is clear that the expression is WP:SYNTHetic.
 * The video was widely criticized by Western observers of Russia, including those critical of the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin.[60][64][65] "widely criticized by Western observers of Russia, including those critical of the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin" nowhere to be seen in any of these references.
 * These commentators, among them Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky, strongly criticized not only the video, but also the committee for lacking any experts on Russia and the former Soviet region.[64][65][62] Who are "These commentators"? Just WP:VAGUE assertions.
 * The video was also criticized for its bellicose message by a number of progressive outlets, notably The Nation, ThinkProgress, and The Outline.[66][67][62] Who decides what is to be featured "notably" and what constitutes a "progressive outlet"? Just another example of SYNTH, and WP:OR.
 * "the victim of an emotionally-charged, self-exalted status" who had "fall[en] prey to emotional stress." What a surprise that a paid agent of the Russian government just declared Freeman a self-exaulted (implying that Freeman is a star only in his mind, as if his status as a star is not widely recognised), emotionally-stressed person (casting aspersions on Freeman's mental stability—a favourite tactic of the Kremlin since the days of the Cold War). Do we really have to give these Kremlin polemicists space on this BLP article, especially since no other outlet has carried their attacks, other that their own, state-owned media?
 * Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated that she believed Freeman had been "roped in" to be part of an anti-Russian crusade. Another Kremlin attack, about "roping in" Freeman, as if he is some unthinking person or worse. Why such an emphasis on Kremlin polemics, in a proposed section already large enough to be WP:UNDUE? Finally, just a request: Please do not link my username. No need for pinging, especially multiple times in a single post. I have this page watchlisted. Dr.   K.  23:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That is because every time you delete the section, the wording and the debate on the wording, goes back to square one. Objections to wording can be handled in the normal editing process. --RAN (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On the neoconservatives, as I said, watch the Al Jazeera video (reference [60]). Boot is also mentioned in [61] and [62].
 * As for the experts, again, please watch the Al Jazeera video (reference [60]). Also, Bershidsky and Rothrock are Western observers of Russia, both of whom are critical of Putin.  The Al Jazeera video refers to others (specifically Sam Greene of the Russia Institute at King's College London).  In the text, I could list all the experts, but in the interest of keeping this text short, I mentioned only the most prominent one (Bershidsky).
 * The Nation, ThinkProgress, and The Outline are all media outlets that explicitly identify with the American progressive movement (just ask the editors of these publications). Perhaps "specifically" would work better than "notably."
 * On Peskov and Zakharova, your reactions seem to be a rather emotional and non-NPOV to this section of the edit. Peskov is not an "agent" or a "polemicist."  He is the spokesman for the head of the Russian state (the Russian equivalent of the White House Press Secretary).  You may or may not agree with his opinions and you may or may not agree with the policies of his government, but he is a government official.  It is the same with Zakharova.  You may not agree with her, but she is a representative of the Russian state (the spokeswoman for the Foreign Minister) and so her reaction does matter.  I may not like what Rex Tillerson or John Kerry have to say or the policies they or their administrations favor, but that does not make their remarks or input any less significant.  It is important to mention the reaction of the Russian state.  The fact that the state reacted to the video is indeed noteworthy.
 * Finally, to say that no other outlet outside of Russian state media carried their attacks is factually incorrect. As I mentioned above, Peskov's attack was mentioned in The New York Times and the pro-Western Moscow Times.  His attack and Zakharova's were also covered by the BBC.  The New York Times and the BBC are major international media outlets. Dekambrist (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * On Peskov and Zakharova, your reactions seem to be a rather emotional and non-POV to this section of the edit. Please do not ascribe personal attributes to my descriptions of a known illiberal regime. I will not ascribe any motives or states of mind to you, and I expect you to show me the same courtesy. I ask you to retract that statement per WP:NPA an WP:CIVIL so that I can continue this discussion unobstructed by personal and unwarranted characterisations.  Dr.   K.  01:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I retract. :) Dekambrist (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The video was widely criticized by Western observers of Russia, including those critical of the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin. There is a slant in this description, implying that the video was so bad that even Putin critics criticised it. If this is not supported by the exact comment in an RS, it is SYNTH.
 * These commentators, among them Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky, strongly criticized not only the video, but also the committee for lacking any experts on Russia and the former Soviet region. Highlighting the Bloomberg columnist, among all the others, is a POV choice if the RS do not specifically make that distinction.
 * The video was also criticized for its bellicose message by a number of progressive outlets, notably The Nation, ThinkProgress, and The Outline.[66][67][62] We cannot call the video's message "belicose" in Wikipedia's voice. We should attribute this to whichever outlet described it that way. We should also not characterise the news outlets as "progressive" if that description was not included in the reports of the RS concerning the Freeman video. I also suggest we trim the Russian spokesman comments according to the report by the NYT. Dr.   K.  02:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Dr. K, how about this? (see below) I removed the reference to Putin and the "progressive outlets." I kept in Bershidsky, though, because he is mentioned specifically in the reports from Al Jazeera, ThinkProgress, and The Outline. Finally, I trimmed the statements from Peskov and Zakharova. I left the TASS sources because, as I mentioned, TASS is the Russian government's press agency. Therefore, the translations reflect government-endorsed translations of statements by Russian government officials. So, I say we keep these sources in tact. Again, you may not agree with the Russian government or its policies, but the reaction of the state is important. In any case, I hope you approve of this version. :) Dekambrist (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

On September 19, 2017, Freeman featured in a highly controversial video launched by the Committee to Investigate Russia group organized by film director Rob Reiner and The Atlantic senior editor David Frum, with the involvement of former US National Intelligence director James Clapper and a number of neoconservative thinkers. In the video, Freeman accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 American presidential election and declared "we are at war." The video was widely criticized by Western observers of Russia. These commentators, among them Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky, strongly criticized not only the video, but also the committee for lacking any experts on Russia and the former Soviet region. Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the Kremlin did not regard the video seriously and that it considered Freeman "the victim of an emotionally-charged, self-exalted status." Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated that she believed Freeman had been "roped in" to be part of an anti-Russian crusade.


 * highly controversial video is a description that has to be supported by several RS. If not, we have to downgrade it to just "controversial". Similarly, The video was widely criticized... may have to be downgraded to simply "criticised", and columnist Leonid Bershidsky, strongly criticized not only the video,... the "strongly" has to be removed, if not specifically described as such by several RS. The rest looks ok to me at least. You have made a good-faith effort. Thank you. Dr.   K.  04:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think, with Dr.K amendments, this is a good solution. I'm not sure the bit about the committee ("not only the video, but etc") as that is not about Freeman, who is the topic of the article. If there were an article about the Committee, that text should go there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bob. That was a good catch. I agree that ...not only the committee... is a criticism that does not relate to the BLP and should not be included. Dr.   K.  15:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I re-added the section to the page and removed "highly" and "strongly" as Dr. K suggested, though I kept "widely" because this term is supported by the source. Following BobFromBrockley's suggestion, I modified the section on the criticism, referring to the reasons for the criticism of both the video and the committee generally, and not only to the committee specifically.  In any event, now it looks good! :) Dekambrist (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

He's not dead
I'm just gonna go ahead and put this here because there's apparently a hoax article that's spreading on social media stating that Morgan Freeman is dead. The fact of the matter is: he's not. Any reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 13:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Critique of "Russia video controversy" section
I oppose including this section for many reasons. I reverted using the edit summary "Remove a section that pushes a point of view and gives undue weight to a minor part of Freeman's life and career."

In my opinion, this section is a sophisticated variation of a coatrack article. I would call it a "coatrack section". The purpose of this section is not to improve the biography of an 80 year old actor who has appeared in over 50 major films and has won an Oscar and has been nominated for four other Oscars. No, the purpose of this section of the article is to attack the Committee to Investigate Russia, which is a red link because no one has bothered to write an article about this venture. This is about a two minute video narrated by Freeman, who has starred in many famous full length films. In the context of Morgan Freeman's 80 year life and 50+ years as a star, this section violates our core content policy requiring the neutral point of view, since it devotes undue weight to his two minute narration of an online video. This biography should summarize what the best and most comprehensive sources have said about Freeman's life and career. That core content policy says that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." I submit that only the tiniest percentage of coverage of Freeman mentions this matter, and that it therefore does not belong in this article. This is also an example of recentism, paying excessive attention to a minor 2017 incident in the biography of an 80 year old man, trying hard to whip up controversy.

Another aspect of this effort are repeated attempts to characterize the project as "neoconservative" despite the broad and bipartisan character of the notable people backing the project. If someone was to claim that many were former military and intelligence officials associated with the Obama and Clinton administrations, that would be accurate. A few such as Max Boot and Norman Ornstein have been on the periphery of neocon circles, but I think that both have denied being neoconservatives. Charles Sykes is a former far right social conservative who has broken with that ideology. Use of a term widely considered to be pejorative is more evidence of pushing a point of view. A large majority of these people are clearly not neoconservatives. As for Freeman, there is no evidence that he is an actual leader of this venture, but instead only the narrator of a two minute video.

Now, let's take a look at the sources. There are three references for the claim that the video is "controversial", but as far as I can see, none of those sources uses the word "controversial", which seems to be synthesis by the editors trying to advance that claim. Al Jazeera reports that the video has "drawn criticism". The Variety source is a straight news report with no hint that Freeman's participation was "controversial". The third source is an obvious opinion piece by a highly opinionated but otherwise unknown young writer named Hannah Gais, who really, really dislikes the Committee to Investigate Russia, and is willing to take a swipe or two at Morgan Freeman to advance her polemic. It seems clear that she is not a reliable source about Morgan Freeman, but only for her own fervent opinion. And even though she complains at length, she does not use the word "controversial". There is no reliable source that verifies that Freeman's narration is actually "controversial".

So, what do we have here? A tempest in a teapot. Morgan Freeman narrated a video criticizing Russia and Putin, and quite predictably, Russian spokespeople spent a few days denouncing him, as did a few Americans who oppose hostility between the two countries.

Let's say that some editor went through the list of 50 films Freeman had made, and found one where a few critics were harsh, or people claimed he was overpaid, or mocked him because the film was a box office flop. Would that deserve a section in this biography? Of course not. Including such relative trivialities would be undue weight. That is exactly what this section is.

Instead, people who care should write an actually neutral article about the Committee to Investigate Russia, if that venture is truly notable. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have again removed this section on what I believe to be valid policy grounds, and ask that it not be restored without talk page consensus. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with Cullen. "Controversial" is editorializing, and what does all this add up to? We got a few news articles but much opinion, and if you look at Google News it's not even on the first page anymore. Ha, he generates a lot of coverage. So it certainly seems undue to me, and y'all will have to get consensus here: it's a BLP so we must always err on the side of caution. Cullen, thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I find these arguments very persuasive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Back in September someone added this committee as an external link to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (they added it literally on the day the committee was created). There was a discussion whether to allow it as an external link, see Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. There was no conclusion at the time except to wait and see if this new advocacy group becomes more noteworthy with time. It is still not included there as an external link. What might interest the discussion here is this WaPo article, Why bashing Morgan Freeman, of all people, is suddenly the rage in Russia: "…now the legendary American actor is a pariah in Russia, with Kremlin officials, Russian talking heads and pro-Putin social media trolls ganging up to denounce Freeman. The all-hands-on-deck response suggests a concerted Russian effort to discredit the actor via social media." You all might want to evaluate the recent editing at this article in the light of this information. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. It occurred to me that my comment could be misread as suggesting that the editors adding this content are Russian trolls. They obviously aren't, sorry for any such implication. But the "criticisms" and "controversy" being quoted here do appear to be part of a concerted Russian response. We might want to apply WP:DONTFEED in deciding whether to report on it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing that article,, which provides some very useful context. To state the obvious, Wikipedia is not a social media platform and should not be a playground for trolls. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, it is always good to see three admins converging on this talkpage. When I first arrived here due to Cullen's post at BLPN, I removed the offending section, but then, the edit-war started and I was being reverted left, right, and centre. The subsequent talkpage discussion initially turned against removing this piece from the article, and I also got subjected to PAs. Not seeing anyone supporting my position, I tried to reduce this crap as much as I could. In any case, you can read the posts above and see what happened. I just wish y'all arrived here a bit earlier.  Dr.   K.  23:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.K: It's amazing what can happen when you post about something on Drmies's talk page - as Cullen did. Or pretty much any admin's for that matter. Next time, don't suffer in silence: call attention to a bad situation on some admin's talk page and see who comes out of the woodwork. BTW I have now watchlisted the page. If people start trying to add that he has died, as is apparently a rumor being spread (see below), I or somebody will protect the page. Who ya gonna call? Now you know a few. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Lol Melanie. You are so right on all of these points. I especially enjoyed the link to one my favourite movies. That was really funny. :) Normally, in cases of obvious disruption I approach a few admin friends and make them aware of the problem. However, as I'm sure you know, BLP matters are hit and miss, and are subject to intense edit-warring and disputes. This makes me reluctant to ask any admin for help, first because I don't want them to get in trouble on my behalf, second because the admin may not want to participate in the first place. But thank you for advising me that you can help in such matters, especially when the situation is highly charged politically. You never know, I may have to call the team you linked to in the future to bust a few BLP violations here and there. Dr.   K.  00:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The beauty of posting on an admin's talk page is, we all have lots of talk page stalkers. In my case they often know a lot more than I do, and are willing to jump in and fix things so all I have to do is say "thank you!" Similarly, if the person whose page you posted on doesn't want to deal with whatever, or is offline or unavailable, the stalkers may take over. Whoever invented the concept of talk page stalking deserves a medal. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. One reason why posting on Drmies's page is so effective: he has 953 talk page watchers. That's his punishment for being so interesting. That's about 27 centijimbos, if you're counting. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was a bit slow to speak out because I live in the Napa Valley, and am a bit distracted. Wildfires have killed dozens of people and destroyed thousands of houses and businesses in our area in recent days. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Melanie for the tpw analysis. You are right. Talkpage watchers are a resource not to be underestimated. I had not counted, but 27 centijimbos for Drmies's talkpage is quite impressive. Dr.   K.  02:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cullen, I had no idea you were in close proximity to this disaster. I hope everything is well with you and yours. For what is worth, I am fully aware this is a volunteer project, and I did not have any expectations of quick action from you or anyone else. By the way, thank you for your help on Larry King. Best regards. Dr.   K.  02:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I was really surprised to find so much news coverage of him and what he says and does. I guess I don't read all of those media outlets, or all of those sections, though I thought I was pretty well read. News of his death (see section below) was more recent than this affair. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I see one of the editors who reverted the deleted section back in here has now copied and pasted it to the Rob Reiner article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morgan Freeman. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403125911/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/morgan_freeman_biog/3 to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/morgan_freeman_biog/3
 * Added tag to http://www.gousabid.com/blog/entry/morgan-freeman-joins-bid-committee-in-zurich/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217195229/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/morgan_freeman_biog.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/morgan_freeman_biog.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman comments in the Guardian
You might want to add the information that Morgan Freeman comments in the Guardian. This is very risky, since you can be humiliated publicly as a commenter. Most celebrities comment only on twitter since there you will not be answered, you can use it as a propaganda channel, unanswered. It is probably him, since he has the name "Morgan_Freeman" and his picture in the Guardian. If anyone dared to use his name and image, then someone would probably tip him off and that person would be sued, just like Madonna sued someone for having madonna.com and won.

Per in Sweden (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Employment prior to acting
There is verbal evidence that Mr. Freeman worked a printing press at Marcus Books around the time that he was a dancer. Blanche Richardson can be heard claiming this around 4:13 in the following video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?402682-1/marcus-books.173.50.20.19 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman's role in TLA
This article failed to even so much as mention in passing Morgan Freeman's time at the TLA in Philadelphia. He should be recognized for the role he played in the famous troupe there.

Filmography
Hi, one of Morgan Freeman early roles was left out, Dealer's Choice (The Twilight Zone) Series 1, episode 8, part 3, first aired November 1985, Directed by Wes Craven, where Freeman assumes the role of a guy called tony playing a friendly game of poker with friends but when one of the regulars is unable to attend another takes his place who turns out to be the devil himself.

A movie made in 2009, called “The Maiden Heist” -original title- but renamed “The Heist” was also left off his filmography. LadyHemplett (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018
I am requesting that Morgan Freeman should have examples of his previous acting roles, such as acting as God in the film Bruce Almighty. Traversm25 (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Try the Filmography section or the article Morgan Freeman on screen and stage. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Freeman appeared as God in the hit film Bruce Almighty and its sequel, Evan Almighty" is under "Acting career". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

a book that follows Last Vegas, and covers Freeman as one of its actors, has been published.
Dear Editors of this page: I would like to suggest a reference to Below the Line: Anatomy of a Successful Movie. It is written by an embedded journalist and chronicles the making of Last Vegas, which Freeman starred in. It is not a studio book but independent narrative nonfiction. It shows the actor at work. www.belowthelinebook.com https://www.amazon.com/Below-Line-Anatomy-Successful-Movie/dp/1729386385 Ubermoviefan (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

missing from filmography
"Last Knights" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Knights

source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcatcher_(2003_film)

Morgan Freeman was the star of Dreamcatcher. This should be added to his filmography page

j_blair@verizon.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEBlair (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2019
1. {He is ranked as the fifth-highest box office star [when?]} becomes {As of March 4, 2016, one ranking showed him as the fourth-highest all-time box office performer}

2. {million per film.} becomes {million per film. As of early 2019 the same ranking listed him as seventh-highest.}

3. Existing passage (with footnote number accurate as of this moment): {million per film.[6]} Desired, insert new footnote (6 presently) before that one: {million per film.[6][7]}

Current footnote 6 is https://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/?view=Actor&sort=sumgross&p=.htm

Pair of footnotes would be https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050728/https://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/?view=Actor&sort=sumgross&p=.htm https://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/?view=Actor&sort=sumgross&p=.htm

Thank you.

The reason is that the declaration of "highest box office star" is not assertable based on the boxofficemojo.com link. Knowledgable sources would debate the veracity of that claim.

1. That link only covers since 1980, yet represents "all time" box office revenues.

2. That link only shows 64 films for this actor. His current total at other sites - since 1980 - includes for example 76 on IMDB 1980 through 2018, after subtracting TV works, shorts, documentaries and uncredited roles.

3. Most importantly, those 64 are not starring roles. "Box office star" should derive from movie grosses attributable to a starring role, not "character actor" roles. In other words, that (footnoted) table would attribute the entire earnings of Titanic and Avatar to someone with a 10 second long credited appearance (as long as they were listed in the credits, "above the line").

4. There is or seems to alway be debate on movie revenues with respect to domestic vs. worldwide, and theater revenue vs. aftermarkets. Presumably direct-to-video has zero "box office". Moreover some industry statistics focus on "first run" theater revenues instead of any of that.

So establishing a specific criteria for "highest box office star" is quite nebulous. It's complicated; https://www.the-numbers.com/person/610401-Morgan-Freeman#tab=summary is one analysis which ranks him either 75th, 60th, 62nd, 4th, 11th, 82nd, 29th or something else. Ergo these "fixes".2600:6C56:6600:1ECF:ECD2:A5A9:2076:D7B8 (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently no one paid attention to any of my significant points until many months later, finally deleting the passage but only due to a dead link. I put a lot of work into this Talk section, but I'm questioning whether I should have bothered.2600:6C56:6600:1ECF:1078:10AD:7899:589D (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Earrings
Why aren't his earrings mentioned? https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/17/morgan-freeman-this-much-know-red-film-actor 46.114.141.241 (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2021
The category tags of Morgan Freeman being an agnostic are not supported by any source or stated anywhere on his page other than in the tags. It would be unwise to maintain and keep these tags as a result of their unreliability. 74.64.195.172 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. The source I'm assuming this category was based off was his response to the question "Would you consider yourself an atheist, or agnostic?", quoted as It's a hard question because as I said at the start, I think we invented God. So if I believe in God, and I do, it's because I think I'm God. That's an incredibly cryptic response, and not one that's clear enough to base the tag on. So until someone finds a better source for the "agnostic" label, I'll just remove it. Volteer1 (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021
Change"Some of Freeman's great-great-grandparents were slaves who migrated from North Carolina to Mississippi." To: "Some of Freeman's great-great grandparents were enslaved, and migrated from..." "Enslaved" is a more respectful, humanizing, and accountable term vs "slaves." 198.90.87.30 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Take It Somewhere Else 38.35.183.184 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC) (take it to twitter)

Meanwhile in Alabama they let him play police commissioner and gave him the keys to the bat signal  https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/morgan-freeman-interviews-police-recruits-gulf-shores 38.35.183.184 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

1996
The movie The Kiss Goodnight is missing, can some add it? 173.79.10.139 (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Added His religion
whilst he is formerly agnostic he is a convert to Zoroastrianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judeobasquelanguage (talk • contribs) 00:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this true? He certainly talks of Zoroastrianism, but neither of the sources listed actually show him to be Zoroastrian: one is a website claiming he is, however in the video interview they use as evidence he says 'No' when asked if he's religious. The other link is a documentary of him talking to Zoroastrians and about Zoroastrianism, although I don't believe he ever actually said he's Zoroastrian in it.
 * He definitely talks about it, but from what I've seen it's a lot more of a cultural thing for him than a religious thing - he likes the culture and ideals of the religion, whilst being irreligious himself. I believe it would be more accurate to say something along the lines of 'Whilst Freeman is not religious, he does (follow the teachings of/subscribe to several beliefs of) Zoroastrianism'.
 * I could be completely wrong though! If that's the case, I still feel better sources are needed in the article itself. Redfordia (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Filmography
Evan almighty 82.45.102.230 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What's your point? It's listed here. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022
Please edit or remove "The Nigger Lovers" as it is offensive to Blacks and Republicans that set the black slaves free. When Morgan Freeman was asked how to deal with racism in a discussion, he stated,"Just stop talking about it." Moving forward...please. Is it a historical context that is beneficial to Mr. Freeman? Esaustew (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See WP:NOTCENSORED. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Freeman's use of compression gloves for his fibromyalgia (Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023)
The Personal Life section mentions that he's suffered from fibromyalgia since his 2008 car accident. He was seen wearing a compression glove at the oscars this year, which could be used to clarify what extent the disorder has affected his life/its affected region on his body.

Before: Since the incident, Freeman suffers from fibromyalgia.

Proposed Change: Since the incident, Freeman suffers from fibromyalgia, for which he wears a compression glove that supports blood circulation.

Here is an article that could support this addition: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11852381/Oscars-2023-Morgan-Freeman-wears-satin-glove-paralyzed-hand-presents.html#:~:text=Morgan%20Freeman%20wore%20a%20black,injured%20in%20a%20car%20accident. HeDisconnected (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Raladic (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Raladic (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Maggie Freeman" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maggie_Freeman&redirect=no Maggie Freeman] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 22:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Filmography
Deep Impact is missing. the greatest sci-fi he ever starred in this is amazing 96.41.146.115 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing: Moll Flanders 1996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.131.57.9 (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman sexual harassment allegations
As many actors have a separate section in their "Personal Life" (Casey Affleck is an example) for "Sexual Harassment Allegations," I feel as though Morgan Freeman should have one as well. Even if the sources listed in this CNN article might be of some contention, I think it is still important to put. Would really love input from people on this—TIA. Voraciousdolphin (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have always been a big fan of Morgan Freeman and of all the actors I would most like to meet or at least talk to. 24.144.187.242 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Allegations don't belong in an article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023
At the time when Mr Freeman served in the US Air Force, his rank of Airman First Class was three stripes, not two. Suggest changing the image with a footnote...

https://www.uniform-reference.net/insignia/usaf/usaf_enl_chron.html 2600:6C46:640:B:98EE:4997:9F05:F2A1 (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Feel free to message my talk page if you have any questions. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual relationship with granddaughter
Freeman's granddaughter E'Dena was murdered by her boyfriend, who has since accused Freeman of having a sexual relationship with her. The boyfriend's reported that E'Dena had disclosed this to him before her death, confirming rumours that had been circulating for years. https://nypost.com/2018/04/20/morgan-freeman-had-affair-with-step-granddaughter-alleged-murderer/ 180.150.37.18 (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * - Step-Granddaughter. 188.113.95.213 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela picture is NOT Morgan Freeman
Someone should remove/fix this particular picture! 199.68.231.227 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The caption for the image just wasn't worded right. I've edited it to clarify. Squeakachu (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024
Morgan Freeman's Page says that he has died, this is untrue as of this current moment and should be changed EthryGo (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jamedeus (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)