Talk:Samuel L. Jackson/Archive 1

For a person of Jackson's age, the draft and the Vietnam War were two of the biggest aspects of that era, but both are entirely ignored in his biography.

>The college eventually agreed to change its ways, but Jackson was charged with and eventually convicted of a second degree felony (unlawful confinement)

He was a felon in 1968 and the draft started in 1969 so he would have been disqualified due to his criminal record. 71.113.245.194 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He was probably able to obtain deferment while in college. After that, his draft status may have depended on his birthday. He may have obtained a high lottery number based on the day of the year he was born. Dwhjr (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just added new section, bring any knowledge you have about Samuel L. Jackson's deaths in movies. I added some of the movies he died in, but I could be mistaken about a few of the names. If anyone knows any other movies he died in, please be sure to add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehrams2020 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, that doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, namely its provisions against FAQs. For example, we don't contain lists of films where an actor played a cop, had a sex scene, etc. --Madchester 16:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is a selected filmography shown? One of the things that is special about Samuel is that he has starred in so many movies over a short period of time.

Well, if you notice this filmography basically includes 95% of them. You can see something like 4 movies per year, every year from 1995 on. By "Selected" it would just mean we exclude something like a bit part or cameo. JackO'Lantern 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Highest Box Office Gross a link to that article would help?

I think he might have been at one point, or maybe not. But he isn't right now [1] JackO'Lantern 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I modified the top of the article to change these claims to match more reputable sources than the hearsay quoted in the original. These sources include CNN and Box Office Mojo as described in this text copied from my Post on Tom Hank's discussion page:

According to the sidebar on this CNN page, Harrison Ford's grosses "are the second-highest of any actor in Hollywood history, after Tom Hanks." (emphasis mine; note: no mention of Samuel Jackson). Furthermore, according to Box Office Mojo, Samuel Jackson ranks 8th on the list. That's two distinct, co-supporting, reputable sources that agree on at least the top two names on the list (and neither of them are Samuel Jackson!).

216.240.7.149 04:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion here re Box Office Gross is the reference in the lead paragraph statement that in 2011, Jackson passed Frank Welker as the highest grossing fim actor of all time. I included a new section re this. Frank Welker was strictly a voice actor, so passing Welker was strictly for Jackson's voice acting, not for actual physical performance on film. Dcrasno (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Filmography in anti-numerical order?--Honeymane 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I can clear up the box office issue.The original figure came from the-numbers.com. The discrepancy comes about when determining what is counted in that over all number. the-numbers.com used the grosses from every film that he was in, even if it was a small role. Mojo and others use only the figures of movies where he has a significant role. example - the-numbers.com would have included the total gross for Goodfellas. Mojo would not include that in his total. Soon after I pointed this out to him, he mentioned it on Leno. Access Hollywood (I think) pickd it up and got it wrong. They called him the 6 billion dollar man. I think they got their figure from world wide gross, but did not clarify that fact. So the whole thing ended up a mess. BUT basically it just biols down to how you are going to look at the numbers.Thediva 10:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)The Diva

I'm doing a box office gross project, and while far from complete, Frank Welker films, including minor roles and small voice parts, have gross $21 billion dollars, while Samuel L. Jackson films have only grossed $14 billion via these same guidelines. And while the previous comments are now almost a decade old, it should be mentioned that Alan Rickman films have grossed more than Tom Hanks, placing Hanks 4th. I haven't gotten around to Harrison Ford yet, but the article on Samuel L. Jackson is highly misleading. 173.216.166.51 (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)martryn, 1/29/15

Also I sat down with him last month and he talked quite ab bit about The Cleaner. You can check out the article on his site www.samuelljackson.com

Home of the Brave has been pushed to March. But I forgot the date.The Jumper probably won't come out until 2008. As of last month, it was still being filmed.I think BSM is coming out on 2/23/07

I would love it if someone added infomation about Samuel doing that Barclays bank advert a few years ago.

How about a listing of actual television appearances?66.19.240.5 (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm seriously doubtful as to whether the Pop Culture section contributes anything meaningful to this article. Jackson was parodied twice on Chapelle's show? Who cares? Is anybody actually going to look up Jackson on Wikipedia and see this as useful? -Joshuapaquin 16:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. The popular culture section is just a transcript of the Chappelle show. I am going to cut it down.'

The Samuel Jackson mixed drink recipe :
-1 part Samuel Adams
-1 part Captain Morgan
-1 shot of Jack Daniels

Is it really necessary to say in Samuel's biography that he often played a black man? Not trying to be humorous, just trying to trim the fat, as it were.

Thus, he is usually cast into roles that involve a cool, controlled, "in-the-know" black man.

I think that "black man" could be substituted with "character".

Edit: I just remembered that I should probably be bold.

--'character' could be substituted for 'black man', however does it convey the same information? Are the characters Mr. Jackson plays notable for being black men, or simply characters? Beyond the fact that he is a black man, and hence most of his roles will be as a black man, are the 'cool, controlled, "in the know"' roles he preforms typified by his colour? Or could an actor of different race play them as convinvingly? It is valid to note that Jackson is used to protray a 'Black Man' and not simply characters who happen to be black. Having seen a fair amount of his films, I will note that his role in SWAT, Star Wars, and Kill Bill have all been simply of a 'cool, controlled character'. Do his older roles lean more towards a typified 'black man'? I havn't seen enough to judge, (my memory of pulp fiction suggests colour wasn't a defining characteristic of his role). If someone feels that they have seen enough to judge, they should feel encouraged to post here as opposed to simply reverting the change.

I was bold, and added "many of which(the characters) have a tendency to snap, and become agressive", as seen in pulp fiction, jackie brown, xXx, die hard 3 and sphere. And this may be biased, but also a Gonzoism, but when playing san andreas, every cutscene with tenpenny, i was expecting him to explode in rage all over carl. Jackpot Den 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

wow i have no ability to figure out how to revert the picture... someone fix it from that bizzare pic... M@$+@ Ju ~ ♠ 18:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The picture isn't that good, a different one would be better .--Karimi 15:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is an awful picture. We don't have anything better? Not even a clip from one of his movies? Seriously, my eyes... BethEnd 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

BLARGH! NEW PICTURE NOW! PLEASE! -69.249.85.13 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Change it to his picture from Pulp Fiction. The one where he's saying "Does he look like a bitch"

For some reason his internet movie database link went to Fred Ward's page. I dont have a clue why. their number ids werent even that similar. I've changed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Thom32 (talk • contribs) .

[2] Beats me why that editor changed it. They also changed the IMDB link on Freedomland (film) to point to Last of the Mustangs as well [3]. *shrug* Cburnett 18:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson#Personal life says vegetarian while the article is in Category:Vegans. Which is it? Cburnett 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He's vegetarian, not vegan. I've corrected the category. Þicaroon 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

He's neither. In a December 18, 2006 interview with Jay Leno of the Tonight Show he stated he was eating meat. He might have been in the past but is no longer. --Nehrams2020 20:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

-I'll ask him. I've never seen him eat red meat, pork or chicken. I think I saw him eat a shrimp salad once. BUt I won't swear to it.Thediva 11:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)The Diva

I nominated the article for Good Article status. Please consider evaluating the submission if you have not significantly contributed to the article. --Nehrams2020 07:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying again! --Nehrams2020 00:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Good article nomination for Samuel L. Jackson/Archive 1 has failed for the following reason:

This article needs to be cited. Most of the article has no in-text citations and this must be taken care of before the article will be approved

I will nominate this article as an Unreferenced GA, but please add the citations and try again for GA status. This article will surely be approved in that case.

--The Talking Sock talk contribs 20:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have again replaced the image. Please note that Image:SamuelLJackson.jpg is unacceptable for copyright reasons. Please only replace the current image with a freely-licensed image (e.g, one licensed under the GFDL or one of the acceptable CC licenses). —Chowbok 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone source this? "Shortly before graduating from Morehouse, Jackson was seen in a McDonald's TV commercial in the early 1970s. " Mad Jack 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing that somewhere on the Internet a few months ago, but I just did a quick search from google and nothing came up. It can be readded later if someone finds a source for it. I also checked his imdb.com page where it lists multiple commercials that he has been in and McDonald's wasn't mentioned at all. --Nehrams2020 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, I took it off, I'm one of those "revert first ask questions later people"...:) BTW, can you think of some better arrangement for the pictures in filmography? IT just seems a little odd for three pics to be there one after the next. Mad Jack 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't notice you took it off until I checked the article after coming to the talk page first. Anyway, the pictures really do need to be fixed. I have always wondered how to fix the locations of the ones in the filmography section, so it's good to see someone else does too. You just recently resized several of them, but I think they are a little too small. I'll increase them a little bit. Could we put one of the pictures in the references section, just because it has room? I also think we should get rid of the one where he is in The Man, the picture's quality isn't that great and looks like it was merely cropped. I'll let you use your revert first ask questions later power to decide. --Nehrams2020 20:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, it looks better. At least one of the pics has to go, not sure what one though. Mad Jack 03:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for the "Poker Nights" and "Halo" listings? Google searches for Poker Nights seem to indicate it was some kind of unconfirmed rumor. The Hayden Christensen co-star thing seems to play off of Jumper, in which the two are co-starring. Mad Jack 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

These are unconfirmed. I asked him about Poker Nights at some point and I think he said it mentioned in passing at a film festival and that's how it all started. I'll ask him again.

This filmography is not nearly as comprehensive as it needs to be. It is a widely known fact that Samuel L. Jackson is in everything.

Okay, I added his role as Neville Flynn in Snakes on a Plane to the Notable Roles. I feel it's notable because of all the hype of him being in it caused on the internet. Thatoneguy64 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone wrote "Farce of the Penguins", I'm pretty sure that's not the title...

No, it's actually the title of a new parody film. We even have an article about it! Mad Jack 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an incredibly weird joke article... Maddocks: Homeland Security bans Samuel L. Jackson from all flights Mad Jack 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a note to offer a new external link. It's an interview with Samuel L. Jackson when he was promoting "In My Country". You can see it here. Think it would make for a good addition.

Was he not a heroine adict at some point? Surely that is a more important bio fact than his golfing aspirations? Reaper7 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes he was an addict of crack. He freely talks about it when asked, but does not dwell on it. I think his golfing aspirations should stay. He is proud of his golf game.Thediva 11:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Movie images need FU rationale. Please nominate again after this is fixed.--SeizureDog 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I put the article on hold as well. In addition to the above concerns, there is an unbalanced emphasis on film roles. The problem I see is that "Snakes on a Plane" does NOT deserve this level of coverage. It is not his most prominent role, so it does not deserve to receive the most coverage in the article. A single sentance, such as "His most recent featured role was 2006's "Snakes on a Plane" would suffice. Most recent is NOT always most significant, and the article should not imply so with the level of coverage it gives. --Jayron32 06:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I touched the section up about Snakes on a Plane a little bit. The critic's response about him could probably be removed since it is just one critic and probably deserves to be on the Snakes on a Plane article itself. However, I don't think it should be whittled down anymore since he did receive a significant amount of media attention for the film and the music video.--Nehrams2020 07:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

At issue is mainly that Snakes on a Plane should not receive MORE article-space than say, Pulp Fiction does. The film critic quote, though referenced, could probably be combined with other information better. I perhaps recommend something like "In his most recent film, Snakes on a Plane, Samuel L. Jackson portrays "his usual no-nonsense authority figure"" with the Syracuse Post-Standard inline reference there. It tightens up the awkward langauge, and shortens the article space taken up by this film, but doesn't lose any information. Also, I found this line: "He is usually cast in roles that involve a cool, controlled, "in-the-know" character, many of whom have an aggressive nature. His roles almost always involve a memorable line delivery, many of which are heavily laced with profanity which has over the years become an inadvertent source of humor for many Jackson fans. Jackson's trademark voice inflection lends heavily to this attribute. " as entirely WP:OR. It makes several claims that need to be either referenced or it must go. Also, the turn down of the 50-cent role doesn't specifically cite the film, and is also too long. Most of this information could be moved into the article on 50-cent's film. Here you need to name the specific film, and reduce to a 1 or 2 sentance mention. These fixes SHOULD make this article good-article quality, if you ALSO address the fair-use problems cited by the other reviewer above. --Jayron32 07:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have passed this article as a Good Article. All of the concerns by myself and others seem to have been addressed. Now that it is a Good Article, keep improving it, but don't let the quality deteriorate. Continue to add new, relevent information and improve the prose as needed, but take care that unreferenced and/or irrelevent and/or non-NPOV information does not sneak into the article. Good Job! One improvement you might want to consider now is to add all of the films from the article to the filmography. For example, "The 51st State" is mentioned in the article, and not listed in the filmography. You may want to fix this. But altogether, great job. All biographical articles on film stars should look this good! --Jayron32 21:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My last edit was more suited for a trivia section than 'personal life', but I felt a bit cautious creating one withou consulting the masses first :).--Reverieuk 17:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, looks like my addition wasn't welcome, I appologize. --Reverieuk 19:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections aren't really recommended in articles as they aren't encylopedic. As for the peronal life, it needs some trimming. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it was on the article a couple of months ago, and it was decided that it should be removed then as well. We have removed the trivia section to help the article reach its GA status. With any addition, it should be sourced, to help ensure it is verifiable and accurate. --Nehrams2020 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be added that he apeared in the movie "Good Fellas" in 1990

i didn't know he did, citation? --92.2.169.125 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you call an article complete on Sam that doesn't make any reference this nickname? Also the continual use of the word fuck by his characters? I mean this is associated with him so much so that the line about too many mother fuckin snakes on the mother fuckin plane was added to Snakes on a Plane at fans insistence. Also, he has parodied this characteristic while hosting the MTV Movie awards (an event not even mentioned in this article.) Research is need to add this in an encyclopedic manner, since is has become synonymous with Mr. Jackson himself. MsDivagin 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya, even when was in Star Wars, he had the letters "BMF" stamped on the bottom of his lightsaber.

The Motherfucker links to this article. I'd like to see a link back, but at least Samuel L. Jackson's use of the word "Motherfucker" is covered somewhere on Wikipedia. --208.186.105.30 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, it should be changed. Showing Samuel L Jackson in a golf outfit is like showing Tiger Woods in full American Football uniform - it doesn't make any sense and will probably confuse people that don't know who he is. Is there any other picture that can be used? --Joewithajay 15:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been rumored that he will appear in the upcoming movie as Nick Fury, a character who was modeled after his likeness.

It claims that he was in the Piano Lesson sometime in the decade after 1976, but I think the play was written in 1990 or so.

It was written in 1986. The section says 1970s-1980s MrBlondNYC 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Last October I finished making a template for the actor, but I benched it after having other articles to work on, as well as my personal life. Anyway, here's what I had created in my sandbox. I'm thinking to add it to the article, just thinking back to all the hard work I put into it at the time makes me want to do it now haha. But I figure I'd take opinion aboard first. Hope you guys like it - constructive opinions appreciated. -- Harish - 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks great, and if you want to add it I don't see why not. I thought in the past that templates like these were deleted, but I think that was only if it was put in every single film article the actor/actress was in. Would this go at the bottom of the article after the external links? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Yeah, this would primarily stay at the bottom of just Samuel L. Jackson's article, (perhaps also his popular character portrayals that have their own articles...) for easy access to articles relative to the actor. Particularly useful with him, being so popular and with the number of films he has been involved with. -- Harish - 16:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a while ago the WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers made a determination not to use filmography templates in articles unless they served a purpose that couldn't be addressed solely on one actor or film page (for example, a template for the films featuring Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers, or Laurel & Hardy, etc.) A template like this would likely not remain long. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Samuel L. Jackson do the voice of Frozone in The Incredibles? Lightman2 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I just checked the article. He did. Lightman2 (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we include a section to the article including information on this subject? I know Wikipedia discourages trivia sections but Jackson has recently become a pop icon and has had numerous major references in movies, telivision, and books alike. 68.219.26.177 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that he plays blues guitar which he learned for Black Snake Moan (film)? Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is he in the category "1947 births", but does the article state he was born in 1948? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.84.174 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been changed to "1948 births". It looks like it was changed by vandalism a long time ago and nobody caught it. Nice job. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't his (former) addictions to drink and hard drugs mentioned at all? There is no doubt that they would have had a major effect on his life. They are relevant to his life (and possibly to his career), so I cannot see any legitimate reason for omitting such information on a biography of him. Such things are mentioned on many other Wikipedia biographies of living people. F W Nietzsche (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is in there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.221.222 (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This page has obviously been vandalized. I don't have the time to scan through it and pick them all out, but if there is a way to roll the page back to a previous version, that would be helpful. Savonnn (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I created Samuel L. Jackson filmography which includes as many films as I could find that he has been in (over 100), but not the TV appearances. I took the template for the table from here and added to it. I think I got them all, and cited as much as I could, which is a lot. I am going to replace the table that is here with a link to the new article, similar to the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography is. --kelapstick (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that this should be merged back into the article. The current length of the article is only about ~40kb, which shouldn't require a splitting of the content. The reason that the Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography was split off was due to the length of his article. The same goes for Clint Eastwood filmography. In addition, the vast majority of the sources added to the filmography aren't needed as the films are references themselves and only specific details need to be cited (such as filming status or cameos, for example). At this time, I believe it should remain with the article, and if the article is significantly expanded down the line, then it can always be redone. If you know of some policy that favors the split, please point it out. It's great that you worked so hard in finding so many sources (of course, they could be used for further sourcing content in this article), and I wish it could have been discussed first. If you disagree with the split, further input from other editors would be beneficial. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If others feel is best to merge back, I won't put up a fuss. I thought that a list of over 100 films would be pretty long to include in the article, and agree I went a little excessive with my citing. --kelapstick (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I had thought about splitting when I first started working on the article but had figured it had been best to wait until the article was long enough to require it. I'll add a merge tag for now (I don't think too many people watchlist this page). Others may agree that the length of the list requires a split, so we'll see. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the prior section, I would like to determine consensus if Samuel L. Jackson filmography should be merged back into this article. A reason for merging includes the length of the article doesn't warrant it while a reason for splitting deals with the length of the list. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say no. Even if kB-wise the main article isn't too long, the filmography is so long that a separate article is warranted. As for the "excessive citing," I don't know--better with than without, is what we say where I come from. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that his filmography was actually notable enough for a stand alone article/list. --kelapstick (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's substantially enough information that it would overwhelm the main article. I would perhaps suggest you move the TV part into the filmography article and put the "See main article" link to it in the Acting Career section CarbonX (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, is not the footnotes for every film, every role, and every director, excessive? Surly one reference to IMDb for the table, with extra notes only for any project not listed there would suffice. (Yes I know that IMDb is no good as a source for trivia, personal details etc., but for a film list that can be confirmed by the credits of each film itself—and the film articles here and elsewhere). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple things going on here. First of all, there was never a discussion about spinning off the filmography, much less a consensus, so that was actually done unilaterally. I'm not at all convinced it is appropriate to do something that drastic to a good article without prior consensus. Then again, I don't think the article would actually survive a GA reassessment as it currently stands. It only has 46 references and I think it is inadequately sourced, while the career section is heavily weighted by recentism. There is barely a discussion of Pulp Fiction, which consists of "He played a major role in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. For his performance, he was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor as well as a Golden Globe nomination and a BAFTA Best Supporting Actor award win. ... Jackson began to receive poor reviews from critics who had praised his performance in Pulp Fiction." Unsourced and that's all there is. He actually received a nomination from SAG and won the Independent Spirit Award for the role. Issues, issues.

I actually don't think the article is improved by the filmography being gone as it at least contained more specific content regarding the films he has been in and the roles. Regarding the referencing in the filmography - no offense to whomever did it, but it is excessively over sourced. Films and roles are considered their own reference and don't require links to IMDB. That page, as well as this one, ignores a number of critic and festival awards and nominations, all of which is actually fairly notable and important content. He won two NAACP Image awards and was nominated for 6 others. There isn't anything beyond the basic mention that he was in Coach Carter to indicate the role was of any weight beyond he was in it. The lack of scope would be almost a quick fail in a GA assessment. I wish all that effort would have been focused on the main article. There is no rule of thumb regarding the point at which a spin off is indicated and honestly, unless an article is approaching 60 kb or so, then spin off might be considered. Personally, I think it belongs back in the main article, with the 35 or so relevant awards included and minus the (again with apologies to whomever did it because that person obviously worked hard to find references for it) elaborate sourcing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was saying the filmography table has a crazy number of unneeded footnotes, not the rest of the article, and certainly not this parent article. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I don't think anyone would quick fail a GA for not mentioning some awards (the criteria calls for broad, not comprehensive). Usually, an article would be placed on hold for that content to be added/expanded. In addition, the number of references isn't really an indicator of sourcing, there are plenty of GAs with less/more. The mention of Pulp Fiction can be expanded, but too much detail is not needed as it would place undue weight against his other hundred roles. Attempting to mention every award for every film would also put excessive detail in the career section. All of the awards can be mentioned in the notes section of the filmography (whether it's decided to be split off or not) or in its own respective section. Although it is a good idea to expand on some of the film/award details you mentioned. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually mean it would fail based on the awards mentioned, but for the lack of broad coverage of the career. Basically, it consists of "he was in this, he was in that, critics didn't like this as much as that" with no detail and often, with no sourcing. I've recently seen a lot of articles of this calibre failed in the GA reassessment drive that had more content of consequence than this one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's wrong that the question is now to decide if there is consensus to return the filmography, when the real issue is that removing it constituted a major change and it was implemented without discussion, and therefore without consensus. Being bold is fine and I support that, but as soon as someone challenges a bold move, that change needs to be reviewed. Should it not just be returned and then discuss whether to split it away, as should have happened in the first place? When User:Nehrams2020 questioned it on June 5, the day it was split, I think it should have been put back, as the move was disputed, and a discussion should have taken place then. I don't think the article or the filmography is so large that it can't or shouldn't be on the same page. I think it's strange to keep the small television table and move the cinematic table, and I have never seen a filmography with such an excessive display of citations. I recognise the good intent, but it's overwhelming. Rossrs (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the filmography is long enough to warrant a separate article and think it should be reinserted in the original article, minus the ludicrous number of citations. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire filmography is a bit lengthy, and would make the article quite a bit longer (not necessarily KB-wise, but length-wise, and I say this with a very wide resolution) than it should be. What is a better solution, IMO, is to select some of his films and include them as a summary in the filmography section, which is standard practice for such spin-off articles anyways. I'm not familiar enough with the filmography to make much in the way of suggestions, but a list might include Pulp Fiction, Snakes on a Plane, Jurassic Park, and Goodfellas. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 03:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already mention of many of his films throughout the career section. Though, if the list was split off, then a summary of a paragraph or two of his filmography would be included. I am trying to determine if this merge should take place or not, as the page will need to be modified accordingly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

in the "Early life" passage it says "Initially intent on pursuing a degree in marine biology, he attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia."

and in the first "acting carrier" passage it says: "Jackson initially went to Morehouse College to major in Architecture, but decided to change his major to Drama after taking a public speaking class and appearing in a version of The Threepenny Opera."

what's the truth then?Odonian (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It was marine biology, then architecture, and finally drama. I reworded to clarify, thanks for catching that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

no problem, but there's another similar problem - in the "Early life" passage it says "After joining a local acting group to earn extra points in a class, Jackson found an interest in acting and switched his major"

and again in the first "acting carrier" passage it says: "He later settled on drama after taking a public speaking class and appearing in a version of The Threepenny Opera."

what's the correct version then? Odonian (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not listed in his filmography that he narated a few sections in ken burn's 2007 documentary "the war". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix this, "internationally recognized and praise from critics. In a review by Entertainment Weekly, his role was commended: "As superb as Travolta, Wills, " - and GIVEN praise from critics. Willis, not Wills. Yak sox (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. In the future, be bold and fix any mistakes you find. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Jackson already in Quantum Quest since January 13, 2010? Shouldn't that be edited in his upcoming films? 76.31.96.99 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I updated the details, I thought it was still not released yet...only a year behind. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone put on Samuel L. Jackson's page and his filmography page that he starred in an adaptation of The Sunset Limited with Tommy Lee Jones? 76.31.96.99 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Sam Jackson's movie "THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT"(starring Geena Davis)?For many of us, this is considered Mr. Jackson's break-out role as leading man opposite Ms. Davis. The box office figures were astounding and has acheived more than just "cult" status. It is confusingthat the critics don't praise this movie as they would-for example "Die Hard", since Samuel has been heaped with all these accolades, the movie "Goodnight" should have afforded him even more. It seems that Sam, Ms. Davis, nor her director-husband has benefitted from this. For one thing, I'm sure that ol' Quint Tarrentino got his idea of lacing his movies with classic R&B tracks from "The Long Kiss...". Also, this figuers as Sam's first "leading-man" role opoosite then hot-property Geena Davis (before her industry-directed "fall" from favor). Also, for one of the most engaging action\mystery\roamnce\dark comdedies of the 90s, Sam gets to kiss his leading lady (those luscious lips of Geena's,); something that not even Denzel Washington was able to achieve. (I remember laughing at the trailer for the "Bone Collector" where Washington's character was a quadrapelegic-designed so by the screenwriters-just so he couldn't have sex with his leading lady, who at the time was not yet the super star she is today (and I personally consider her very a very dumpy-looking creature)She! So, Sam (and Wesley Snipes, also mind you,) gets the girl, and Denzel is "0-2" (The Pelican Brief" should be added here). I suppose that Hollywood still has it in for Ms. Davis, after "Kiss", and her follow-up movie "CUTTHROAT ISLAND" (What is it? They don't like cuvacious "eye-candy" becoming independent actresses and action she-heroes , or otherwise writing their own tickets to interesting roles in Hollywood (like Demi Moore)? I swear that these "liberals" in Tinsel-Town really have it in for assertive women who strive to be more than a pretty face in front of the camera. Maybe that's why the author of the article didn't give "Kiss" a furtive mention. Really, there should be founded a sort of "IDA LUPINO" award celebrating innovative actresses in the industry, following the said Ms. Lupino's noted efforts. Then again, maybe it should be called the "Joan D'Arc" award, since we know what usually happens when innovative females such as Ms. Davis, and Kathryn Bigelow try to use threir "other" natural, more industrious talents behind the camera to contribute (usually thanklessly) to the movie industry.Noenetheless, Mr. Jackson should also be applauded for his work on "Kiss", which-once again-I and many movie-goers consider his true "break-through" role. --69.118.75.213 (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

The article covers many of Jackson's roles but may be missing a few. The article only grows with the input from editors, so to include coverage of the film, consider creating an account to add details about the film. Wikipedia's about being bold, and as long as you have sources to support any impact the film had on his career, go ahead and add it to the article. If you need help, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"orchestra" should be "band". Orchestra is strings only. Horns are ONLY in band or Symphony.

24.131.32.171 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not according to orchestra. You may want to talk about this issue on Talk:Orchestra, as it seems to be discussion regarding the basic definition, not Jackson specifically. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Marked as answered, since it has been answered above. →Dynamic|cimanyD← (contact me) 18:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The United Nations is currently in negotiations with Samuel L. Jackson to recruit him to support its Ending Hunger Campaign (www.endinghunger.org). I would like to reference this ongoing discussion as it sheds a positive light on his philanthropic side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymenkhalifa (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The section currently contains a quote from Jackson praising Barack Obama.

That section needs to be updated with this newer, more recent quote from Jackson:

"I voted for Barack because he was black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them ... That's American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn't mean [bleep] to me." source

92 swp (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just heard Jackson talk about a rather horrible experience he had when a subway door closed on his foot and he was dragged across the platform by the train. This story was recounted on Letterman tonight. Seems significant enough to be included since he ended up needing major surgical repairs to his knee/leg. Dwhjr (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If the page mentions his "support" for Liverpool, and Bohemians, why is there no mention whatsoever of his long held support for the Atlanta Falcons? He even appears in promotional videos for the Falcons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.211.150 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

How tall is he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What is his association with the University of Georgia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.26.141 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In October 2011, Jackson surpassed Frank Welker as the highest grossing film actor of all-time.[1] Should this say something like- highest grossing film voice actor. Yes?Dcrasno (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't edit the actual article, because it is protected.I post this information here, so someone who has editing rights can add the information to the page. According to news reports Samuel L. Jackson is going to appear in the movie "Big Game". Movie is directed by director Jalmari Helander and Jackson plays the role of the President of the United States. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.67.19 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)