Talk:Susan Sarandon/Archive 1

Gay Icon Project
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)


 * Why is she under that category? As far as I can tell, Sarandon is a heterosexual. --Delirium 19:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Beats me. For being in the Thelma and Louise movie, maybe? A2Kafir 21:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Although there are other reasons (some of which other Wikipedians would find more important than the one I am mentioning) that she can be included in this category, my understanding is that it is her love scene with Catherine Denueve in The Hunger that is one of the chief reasons that she qualifies for this listing. MarnetteD | Talk 02:35, 4 October 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).

Academy Award for Best Actress
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)


 * Done. Gimboid 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo
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)

Jack Henry
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.


 * The only article I've found with direct quotes from Sarandon says that she attended the trial at the invitation of Mailer. She claims to have not been supporter. So the truth is: she attended the trial. Period. There is no other primary research. Find a New York Times article which quotes her as saying she was a supporter or named a kid after the guy, then we'll let it stand. In the meantime, the research is too sloppy to allow such a potentially incendiary statement stand. Swango 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

POV re: meaning of attendance at Leviev Jewelers cocktail party
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)
 * I broadly concur with Wildhartlive on this matter. Whilst it might be appropriate for a tabloid to make dubious inferences about a person's motives in this manner, we must adhere to policies of neutrality and original research and should neither make inferences nor lead the reader to a preferred judgment. CIreland (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both. After reading the source, it merely said she was in attendance, as was Isabella Rossellini. She happened to attend an event that was being protested by 30 people. I would hardly call that national news or worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. If she had made some sort of statement declaring her support for a certain political cause at that event, I could understand including it, but that is not the case. This tidbit adds nothing to the article and should be left out. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Pottery & Susan Sarandon
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)


 * I truly have no idea what Puerto Rican pottery has to do with Susan Sarandon, nor why it is relevant to this discussion. 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.
 * To assume, and then post material that would supposedly support the assumption, that her attendance at the opening party for a jewelry store indicates support of a particular political stance is coatracking (see WP:COAT). It assumes facts not in evidence and therefore truly is a POV action. Further, your edit summaries indicate that your viewpoint lies in it being a political statement. You need to learn a bit about Wikipedia guidelines, including ones that tell all editors to assume good faith in editing, which you disregard when you charge a group of unrelated editors, who all express the same opinion, of censorship because they share the opinion that at this time, this information is non-pertinent and irrelevant to the article. Feel free to take it to a "higher up." What essentially has happened here is that a consensus has been reached regarding this issue, and apparently to your chagrin, it went against your opinion. There is no political agenda in that, save the desire to uphold the integrity of this article.
 * Again, as I did before, I urge you to review WP:BLP regarding what is, and is not, acceptable in an article regarding a living person. If you are a historian, then you know that nothing is established as fact until all points regarding the issue are in. If, in the future, this becomes a significant political issue regarding Sarandon, and it is widely and reported as a relevant issue, then that would be the time to revisit the issue. Until then, it doesn't belong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:43, 31 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.
 * To assume, and then post material that would supposedly support the assumption, that her attendance at the opening party for a jewelry store indicates support of a particular political stance is coatracking (see WP:COAT). It assumes facts not in evidence and therefore truly is a POV action. Further, your edit summaries indicate that your viewpoint lies in it being a political statement. You need to learn a bit about Wikipedia guidelines, including ones that tell all editors to"

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))


 * 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. As someone else has said, Wikipedia is not intended to cover every aspect of a person's day to day life. At this time, Sarandon attended a cocktail party at the opening of a jewelery store. There were a small number of people protesting outside. One cannot legitimately draw conclusions about a person's political viewpoint by these two facts. It isn't news, except to a gossip column and a website devoted to particular political issues. Consensus was reached on this issue. The National Enquirer is a long established paper, but no one uses it as a source either.


 * In regard to your comments on the Puerto Rican Pottery article, you should probably consult WP:OWN. Anyone is free to (sic) "tweek" an article, it isn't yours alone to protect from editing or, should it be determined that some article is about a non-notable subject, deletion. Take a step back and breathe. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:35, 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))


 * Ah geez. Yes, the accusations of censorship have gone on too long. The comparison of the New York Post to the National Enquirer is in regard to sensationalism, making a mountain out of a grain of sand. What is of historical importance often cannot be determined at the time an event happens, as you should know if you are an historian. 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, but by future events. Things don't go away on the internet. They are always there somewhere. If, in the future, this brief and, to date, overblown encounter turns out to be significant, then it can be addressed.
 * The consensus of several editors is that at this time, it isn't relevant for inclusion. That isn't censorship, it is deciding what is significant. WP:BLP suggests that for a living person, editors should err on the side of being conservative about inclusion of material. Wikipedia guidelines regarding relevance say A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. In other words, its relevance still waits to be seen. This article isn't entitled The Day to Day Activities and Possible Future Indications of Contradiction in the Life of Susan Sarandon. So consensus is to opt to wait. As you seem to want the last word, I shall let you have it if you choose. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:17, 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))

Citation for Sarandon's inclusion in Category:American socialists
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)

She's Leaving Home?
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)


 * Oh never mind, I didn't scan the discussion carefully, and I see that you removed the section heading. I'm not sure about the idea of "notable at least through the end of the year," though -- isn't lasting importance part of notability criteria? 67.101.96.179 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, sorry for snapping a bit. 67.101.96.179 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think, with living people, if they have a political activism heading in their article, the last paragraph or two will straddle the line between topical and historical. As time passes, some will accrete and some will erode. David in DC (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Susan Sarandon 2005.jpg
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)

Correction for Personal life
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)

Split with Robbins
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 --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of political activism section disputed
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)
 * It sounds like you are disputing a section, not an entire article; please use tags correctly. If you want to see material added, then you should add it.  But what you are doing is tagging and running.  Just update the section, provide a source or two, and be done with it.  Trust me, it's faster than tagging and making arguments where none really existed before.  -- David  Shankbone  20:17, 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-
 * First of all, Rob, you are respondibg to a post that was made almost 2 years ago. Second of all, I'd remind you to assume good faith and stop casting aspersions on the editing of others. You've been warned once not to post personal attacks, adhere to it. In fact, your original post was reverted for due cause, as was clearly explained to you - because you were not adding sufficient references to support what you write. It has nothing to do with Christianity, Edwards, or even with Sarandon. It had everything to do with adhering to WP:BLP, which dictates that all content must be supported by reliable sources. The article you posted as a reference did not use the word campaign and you posted a quote out of context to anything wherein you put it. At least you posted enough the second time around to have the quote make some sort of sense. If you cannot contain your negativity, I'd advise to stop posting on talk pages. If you cannot do so, we can take a little trip to the administrator's noticeboard to discuss your negative comments about an editor following policies and guidelines. One of them is to avoid posting the kinds of comments you've put on this talk page. Another is to at least find out whether the person you're bad mouthing is a "guy" or a "girl". You'd find more credibility that way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Two years or two days, the sentiment is still there Wildhartlivie. That is the point, and it should be taken to heart.


 * Wildhartlivie ->> ...a quote out of context to anything wherein you put it.<<


 * That was where you biased was shown... you "claimed" that I said Susan equates Edwards to Jesus, and I did nothing of your claim. So this is the reason I "first" suspected bias. IOW, claiming something happend that wasn't even there.


 * As I said before the article (in this same section we're discussing, Political activism) pointed out, well before I arrived, that Susan Sarandon supports causes that are similar philosophically to ideas found among the "Christian left." And the term "Christian left" is an article on Wikipedia which clearly indentifies John Edwards as a Christian left as well as Sister Helen Prejean.


 * Sister Helen Prejean was portrayed by Sarandon in Dead Man Walking. Susan and Sister Helen Prejean have appeared numerous times being interviewed and speaking about the death penalty.


 * It was very appropriate and very much in context to the "Political activism" and earlier references to Christian left in the same section.


 * You must understand that anyone can verify what I said by going to your removal of my edits on 11:29, 31 January 2010 Wildhartlivie "quote taken and used entirely out of context."


 * Most shocking to me is that you removed it only 12 minutes after my edit and no one would be the wiser except I returned to make a correction.


 * The idea that a quote was taken out of context where there were not one example of who Susan Sarandon campaigned for or supported in the 2008 election appeared as a knee jerk reaction to the actual content of the source. On the other hand I didn't see you delete or challenge the edit of:


 * "Sarandon has also expressed support for various tolerance and human rights causes that are similar philosophically to ideas found among the Christian left.[16]"


 * Clearly this source, or Susan, does not even hint that her support is similar philosophically to ideas found among the Christian left.


 * Therefore the quick 12 minute removal of my edit and lack of treating other edits with the same aggressiveness only leads me to believe that you had/have an agenda, much like what was accused two years ago. If no one notes bias for a period of time, does it not exist?


 * That is why truth should rule over agendas, whether or not I have identified your motive incorrectly the point was truth and honest should prevail.


 * I also question your clam that "video clips not acceptable sources." Would you post a link where it clearly shows Wikipedia doesn't consider events archived on video is not an acceptable source?


 * The source I had included Elizabeth Edwards standing by Susan Sarandon waiting for her husband to arrive with Sarandon's partner, Tim campaigning to the crowd. In fact I had eight (8) sources and you removed (4) of those. Only one video. You even said one of the sources didn't contain anything about Sarandon campaigning in Hampton which I clearly referenced the source next to "Hampton." That source brought you to the article that said the following:


 * "Even so, plenty of celebrities surrounded him on Monday night. James Denton of "Desperate Housewives" warmed up the crowd before Edwards arrived; actor Tim Robbins officiated; and actress Susan Sarandon stood by as Edwards spoke. Robbins and Sarandon had also appeared at an event at Winnacunnet High School in Hampton earlier in the day."


 * How about you Wildhartlivie, tell me why you have selectively removed those sources that have images of Sarandon and Edwards or Edwards' wife together, and left the others? Tell me why it is not logical for me to suspect you of an agenda instead of a concerned Wikipedia editor?


 * I think my assumptions of your motive to be very normal for anyone to have with what you have done to my edits.


 * Let's let others determine why you continue to remove my edits by going to the history under the "article" and see what was removed and when it was removed. And your action, more specifically "inaction" on other's sources.


 * I will be watching and now I'm interested in your removals to edits on other articles, since I experienced them here, so I will be watching those as well. Wikipedia is not a place for agendas of any sort. For now, I will "assume" good faith, but I will be watching you and expect you to act reasonable and without bias.


 * -Rob- --98.168.148.62 (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to review the policy under no personal attacks is what I think. I grow weary of your casting aspersions and accusations against me when I was clearly following our number one policy - WP:BLP. You put in content that was not supported by the source you stuck in with it. The sources I removed were not only redundant in some cases, they violated the policy on reliable sources. You put a link to a Wikimedia commons picture. We cannot use other Wikimedia articles or links for a source in THIS Wikimedia project. You put a link in to a YouTube video, which smost usually are violations of the United States copyright laws and are thus not includable, something that is true of any video post. This reference was the third one you put in for Bedford NH, along with the Wikimedia picture and the YouTube link and does not contain the city name of Bedford. I fixed that with another link which was not the one you stuck after the city name of Bedford and instead was in another source which you didn't use for "Bedford". That was a screwup of yours. Nothing you put in the article was left unsourced and that is the basis of WP:BLP. Your attack upon the reference I didn't remove regarding philosophy wasn't removed because it provides a source for the statement.


 * Now, let me say cleary to you that if you do not back off your argumentative attacks and personal commentary, I will gladly take you to the administrator's noticeboard for problematic editors. And if you start wikistalking my edits, I shall move to have you blocked. Back off, Rob. The only obvious agenda at work here is your incessant need to post long, winding and accusatory posts that don't even reflect what happened. You are clearly pissed off that your first post to this article was reverted because it was posted out of context of the event. You didn't fix that for a while, when you finally got around to including what prompted Sarandon to make the statement about Edwards. Any conscientious editor would have done the same thing. Stop attacking me, and stop posting arguments to me. Leave me the hell alone and stop posting attacks at me or risk getting blocked for being a contentious and tenditious editor. And grow up and learn to let go of your indignant outrage. It is tiresome. I mean it very clearly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I take you at your word and I have learned more about Wikipedia by our interaction. I am still puzzled that someone as popular as Sarandon that is so political had no mention of whom she supported and campaigned for in the 2008 election. My focus was on content and I see that you are very active in editing and especially citations for biographies. I don't believe you have enough time for an agenda so I apologize that I was so upset with you. As far as I can tell with what I've seen with your other edits, you are fair. -Rob- --98.168.148.62 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology. I truly do not have an agenda, especially about politics and religion. In fact, I avoid those articles like the plague. I don't know why someone didn't post recent election content. This place is usually thick with it. I pursue edits that add content without referencing, or erroneous referencing very strongly. We have to have sourcing to meet the requirements of WP:BLP. even for lowly actors, and especially on content that can be construed to be controversial. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Early career
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)

Interesting article...
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)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100428092420/http://www.nbc.com/who-do-you-think-you-are/bios/susanS.shtml to http://www.nbc.com/who-do-you-think-you-are/bios/susanS.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209043757/http://www.un.org/works/goingon/labor/susan_story.html to http://www.un.org/works/goingon/labor/susan_story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110630083646/http://wif.org/past-recipients to http://wif.org/past-recipients

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) 17:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Birthdays
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)
 * You're right, it's inappropriate. I removed details about the two who do not have Wikipedia articles. Thanks for pointing this out. Sundayclose (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Humorous pro-Hillary vandalism.
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)

Major at Catholic University
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 and was never trained in acting. Some entertainers are known to tell lies about their background but she isn't among them. Iistal (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems and probably is pretty vague. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Only when she criticized Hillary
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)

Weak connection regarding views on Hillary Clinton and mother's position on Iraq War
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)

Susan Political Views
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://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/susan-sarandon-israeli-snipers-executed-palestinian-journalist/

https://en.royanews.tv/news/35596/2022-05-11

However Schazjmd still don't believe it's significant enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Sarandon&diff=1087319766&oldid=1087315764

Ras al Ghoul (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Mother?
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)

Career section should be way longer
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)

Finding volunteers
Need experienced editors to expand the Career section. The1iHope (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

False reporting
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)
 * You need to be more specific and also provide reliable sources for what you say. Also, do not edit war. When your edits have been rejected, then discuss the matter here, as you are now doing. Don't make more edits about this matter until you have convinced other editors and reached a consensus about the sourcing, wording, and framing. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This concerns the Palestine/Israel conflict. As such WP:ECR applies, and you must be logged into an account that is at least 30 days old and have made 500 edits to participants in the topic. If you continue to make edits related to this topic you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you want to add the DSA stuff, we can discuss that although you need better sources than just something she tweeted IMO. The Hamas stuff, or anything to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict, we can't discuss with you. Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia editors are saying that they too are antisemites and won't let us put the trusth about other antisemites in articles!! 194.90.152.87 (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what anyone has said. What we did say was you can't just add something to an article without having reliable sources. And you can't be an anonymous, unregistered editor to edit in this area, you need an established account. Is that clearer? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * question: So why is Twitter not reliable. What sources are reliable according to twitter? 2600:1004:B105:A507:AC45:72EF:F99A:8ABD (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry I meant reliable to wiki? 2600:1004:B105:A507:AC45:72EF:F99A:8ABD (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:TWITTERREF regarding the use of Twitter, WP:RS regarding reliable sources in general. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

she was dropped from a movie because of her remarks at the rally
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)


 * No, she wasn't. The source you cite has someone saying merely that they were considering her for a role. That doesn't mean that she'd even been offered the role, much less accepted. If I say I'm considering asking out Jennifer Aniston but decided not to, it doesn't mean we broke up, because we were never together. Really, it just sounds like some indy short maker was trying to get some free press. Additionally, the source you cited for this claim was Page Six -- we don't even accept the paper that that appears in as a reliable source (see WP:NYPOST), much less confer that respect upon their "gossip" column. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

"After commenting on the situation of American Jews, Sarandon was dropped as a client by United Talent Agency" is not specific enough
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)


 * She did not make a comment on the history of antisemitism in the United States. The comment she is quoted as making was specifically about "at this time", so now, not history. The comment may suggest some ignorance of that history, but we should not be making up lies about what she said. What you suggest is indeed more specific, but it is specifically inaccurate. And we don't need to be that specific in the lead, which is a summary. (Really, I'm not sure if this needs to be in the lead at all.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)